Kathy Petersen’s Blog

Some good links

Posted in Christianity, creation by Kathy on July 17, 2010

Why theistic evolution is be wrong and should be avoided by any who call themselves Christians

First, because when Christians belittle the historical account of Genesis and prefer a hypothesis begun with the presumption that there is no god, so that everything we see must have come about by nothing, they cut “the anchor line” that tethers them to Christ. Yes, some Christians may believe in theistic evolution and remain otherwise true Christians; but far too often, Christians relent on the clear teaching of Genesis and accept millions and billions of years (with a little bit of God thrown in to make it more acceptable to the Christian palate), and then get their legs cut out from under them by the nonsense that inevitably comes from holding that position, and ultimately turn against the faith altgoether. To quote from Richard Dawkins (copied from this article which quotes his book The God Delusion):

‘Oh, but of course, the story of Adam and Eve was only ever symbolic, wasn’t it? Symbolic? So, in order to impress himself, Jesus had himself tortured and executed, in vicarious punishment for a symbolic sin committed by a non-existent individual? As I said, barking mad, as well as viciously unpleasant.’ (emphasis in original; p. 253)

One of the most common questions or come-backs from theistic evolutionists (or those leaning toward that position), is along the lines of, “I can’t understand how God could create the universe in such a way as to appear to be millions/billions of years old — that would be deceptive!” [As if God writing in His Word that He created the universe and all it contains in six days, when in actuality it took millions or billions of years, would somehow be less deceptive?!] What these people often don’t understand (as far as I can tell), is that people did not come up with the ideas of long ages based on the evidence; rather, they came up with that idea based on the assumption that there is no god, and if there is no god, we must explain everything by purely naturalistic principles; and if there is no god, then there can be no special creation, so everything must have just somehow appeared, but it would take even too great a leap of faith for them to say it happened quickly or instantaneously, but if you give “enough time,” then even the improbable becomes possible. Sort of like in “Dumb and Dumber” when Mary tells Lloyd that the odds of them ending up together are “a million to one,” and he gets this goofy grin and says, “So you’re telling me there’s a chance….!”

Here is a parable that perfectly sums up the theistic evolutionist’s position, and the problems that happen when one ignores the history of one who was there, and instead substitutes assumptions that cannot be proven but which skew the results, and go against the written account.

Advertisements

13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. befuddled2 said, on July 17, 2010 at 3:48 am

    Our understanding that the earth was older than 6,000 years was actually started with scientists in the 17th through the 19th centuries, most of whom were Christian and of those who were not Christian they were Christian Deists. I really do not believe you will find an atheist among the group. Some names you can look up if you like would be Adam Sedgwick, Charles Lyell, William Buckland, Abraham Werner, and James Hutton.

    So it was evidence and not a religious belief that determined that the earth is actually billions of years old. As these scientists looked for the evidence of a global flood and also looked at what they saw in the earth they came to the realization that the evidence did not support a young earth, nor a global flood.

    In regards to your parable there are several problems with it.

    1) Unlike the note and the candle, the Bible was not written at the time the earth was created. In fact that are other books that are older than it is.

    2) Unlike the note the Bible’s author is unknown. You may say God, but God did not physically write the Bible.

    3) It does not address any perceived flaws in the reasoning and evidence cited by scientists to support their knowledge that the earth is billions of years old. It insinuates that they are there, but that is all it does. It leaves the really difficult task undone.

    Finally let me suggest a good book on this subject; “Paradigms On Pilgrimage” by Stephen J. Godfrey, a paleontologist, and his brother in law Christopher R. Smith, a pastor at University Baptist Church. Both of these gentlemen started off as young earth creationists.

    In fact Dr. Godfrey went into paleontology with the express purpose to bring to light what scientists were either ignoring or hiding. However while in graduate school he finally admitted to himself that the evidence for a very old earth was overwhelming.

    Pastor Smith came at the same realization from the other end, by his studies of the Bible.

    This book details how and why they gave up their belief in a young earth and how they reconciled that with their belief in God and Christ.

    It is a very interesting read.

  2. Kathy said, on July 18, 2010 at 2:37 am

    Our understanding that the earth was older than 6,000 years was actually started with scientists in the 17th through the 19th centuries, most of whom were Christian and of those who were not Christian they were Christian Deists.

    They did not come up with this understanding in a vacuum; they were the products of the times in which they lived, and some of them at least were heavily influenced by non-Christians. Hutton, for example, discarded the possibility of any supernatural interference in the world before looking at the evidence, not in response to the evidence. [For more on Hutton, you can read this and this Lyell ignored eye-witness testimony on how fast Niagara Falls receded every year, and by so doing was able to “prove” that the Falls were much too old to fit into a Biblical time-frame. But he was just working on strict evidence? Not hardly! He previously suggested that he wanted to “free the science from Moses.”

    “Well, that’s science,” you may retort; not faith. Is it? Is it science to declare that one of the possible outcomes must be excluded before examining any evidence? No; that’s not science. Yet that is exactly what uniformitarianism and “the theory of evolution” does — it excludes any possibility that there is a God from the outset.

    1) Unlike the note and the candle, the Bible was not written at the time the earth was created.
    In the parable, the candle could have been lit some time before the note was written as well. When the note was written is less important than that the person who lit the candle also wrote the note, so he could say with authority what the true history of the candle was.

    2) Unlike the note the Bible’s author is unknown. You may say God, but God did not physically write the Bible.
    The story is a parable of theistic evolution. From what I know, theistic evolution is always an attempt to somehow marry the creation account in Genesis with the millions and billions of years of atheistic evolution, and that theistic evolutionists generally agree that the Bible is the Word of God. If you don’t believe that the Bible is accurate, I don’t know how you can call yourself a Christian. Do you call yourself a Christan? Do you believe the Bible to be accurate? Do you believe it was inspired by God?

    3) It does not address any perceived flaws in the reasoning and evidence cited by scientists to support their knowledge that the earth is billions of years old. It insinuates that they are there, but that is all it does. It leaves the really difficult task undone.
    Well, a parable is merely a short, illustrative story; not an encyclopedic defense of something, so I’m not sure why you’re finding fault with it. Yet, even though it is short, it does point out with great clarity the assumptions geologists make when trying to figure out how old rocks are. In the parable, Lucy assumed that the candle was new (analogous to the assumption that there were no “daughter” elements when the rock was created); she assumed that the burn rate was always the same (that radioactive decay is/was constant), and she assumed no wax had been added nor taken away. If you change any of these assumptions the whole equation changes. But the assumptions can’t be proven, except by one who was there at the start of the process (Manuel). The “scientist” overrode the eyewitness testimony, and then complained about how “deceptive” the evidence was! This is a perfect analogy to comments I’ve read from theistic evolutionists who ignore the clear history given in Genesis, saying that if God really did make the world in 6 days just a few thousand years ago (which is clearly what the Bible teaches!), then He is being deceptive in having the world appear so much older.

  3. befuddled2 said, on July 18, 2010 at 4:08 am

    Let me just hit on two important points here; why scientists do not assume God as an explanation and how a Christian can reconcile evolution and Christianity.

    For the record I was at one time a Christian but now am an atheist. However it was not because of any scientific theory that I became an atheist but rather because of the many moral and philosophical issues I kept encountering as I read and re-read the Bible and thought about my beliefs. I believed as a Christian and still believe (along with millions of others and thousands of evolutionary scientists) that science and Christianity are not irreconcilable positions.

    Since your blog was about why Christianity and science cannot be reconciled let me start with that issue first. You illuminated your ideas with a parable. Let me do mine with an analogy.

    Say that you are in a windowless room and have been for a couple of hours. When you came in it was a sunny and warm May in Texas. Furthermore your favorite weather man has said it was going to stay that way all day.

    Now you have a friend come in and he comments on what a nice day this is. I would imagine you would just agree and think nothing of it. Lets say though that your friend comes in and says boy, it is just pouring outside. At this point you might make a comment on how the weather changed quickly and something about the unreliability of the weathermen; especially if your friends hair and clothes were wet. However if he was dry and you knew him for a practical joker you might doubt his word and take a look yourself.

    Notice that when all seems normal and falling into the normal pattern of things (i.e. things with abundant evidence) – a good day followed by someone commenting on the good day – you believe it. When it gets a little beyond normal – the sudden rainstorm – you may believe it since you have experienced storms coming on suddenly before, although it helps to have additional proof, i.e. the wet hair and clothes.

    Lets go further now. Now your friend comes in and tells you that it is a raging blizzard outside. I seriously doubt that no matter how good a friend and how trustworthy you are not going to take his word for this – even if he has melting snow on his shoulders. You would have to go outside and look. You would need more evidence. Even if you saw it snowing you would look for a snowblower or special effects crew.

    Why? Because this is very much outside the bounds of normal. It is not impossible and does not violate known physical laws, but it is definitely very low on the probability scale.

    And finally if your friend said that it was actually raining nuts and bolts I would imagine you would not believe him and would seriously look for a hoaxer on this one because it violates all known physical laws.

    Now, lets apply this to the Christianity and evolution.

    First let us look at a few of the well known stories in the Bible – the creation story and the story of the flood. Both the creation story and the story of the flood all violate known physical laws and have massive amounts of evidence against them. There is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood, there is massive evidence of age of the universe of several different types and from different scientific fields. This is akin to a friend coming in a saying it is snowing outside. You go outside and see it is still sunny and warm. Even if your friend had some snow on his jacket I think it would be rational for you to assume your friend was pulling a fast one.

    Given that the Christian – who values his God given ability to reason – will then understand that this part of the Bible is a metaphor or allegory meant to illustrate some aspect of humankind’s relationship with God and not meant to be taken literally (even if earlier people who were not as knowledgeable as we are now about natural laws may have taken it as so). And that Christian will then try to understand what is meant by those passages in terms of his relationship with God.

    Now, lets look at the resurrection and the miracles of Jesus. Yes, those violate known laws of nature. However, if you believe in God, we have no evidence that he couldn’t and did not violate the laws of nature he created. If God does exist then this would be possible for him. Note that this is different from the creation story and the flood story, where we have actual physical evidence that these specific events not only conflicted with known physical laws but also did not happen. While Jesus and his miracles violate the laws of nature, we have no physical evidence that they did not happen.

    This is where, for the intelligent Christian, faith comes in. Due to his own personal experience of God he believes in God’s existence. Therefore he believes in Jesus and his resurrection. That person will not try to claim objective proof for it but will take it as an article of faith that it did in actuality happen. If this person is a scientist he will admit it cannot be proved and will not try to do so. But while he only looks for natural laws in his work as a scientist he will believe in the miracles and resurrection of Jesus as a person and as an article of faith, not science.

    The ultimate basis for anyone’s faith is his or her’s perceived relationship with their God. Will it be able to be objectively proved to someone of another religion or belief? No, not totally. But then that is why it is called faith.

    Finally let me state again that there a millions of Christians who reconcile their faith with science, as well as thousands of scientists working in various evolutionary fields who do the same. The book I mentioned before “Paradigms On Pilgramage” is a good example of this.

    Now your and many other literalist Christian’s argument is that since science assumes that there must be a natural explanation for how the world works science is blinding itself to the possibility that God is working directly in the world.

    However is this assumption of naturalism really a self-perpetuated blindness on the part of scientists or is it a clear-sighted necessity for science to work?

    Naturalism is basically the idea that there is a non-supernatural explanation for natural phenomena. In other words any questions we ask about how the world works has to have a natural explanation. Saying God did it is forbidden in scientific research.

    Before going further let me just say that just because a scientist assumes naturalism in his work as a scientist does not mean that he or she assumes it in their total lives. They can be religious and still be a scientist. In fact a group of thousands of clergy from various religions such as Lutherans, Episcopalians, Catholics, Methodists, Baptists and many others got together and did up a statement in support of evolution. There are also thousands of scientists doing good research in evolution – paleontologists, archeologists, geologists, biologists – who are also Christian.

    Let me also state that these scientists and Christians still believe that God created the universe and all life but instead of doing it by a constant series of miracles he instead created the laws of the universe to do it for him.

    Going back to the main subject now, why is it that this naturalistic assumption is necessary for science to work? The short answer as to why this is so is that “God did it” is a showstopper. It stops us from looking further and deeper.

    There is a Sydney Harris cartoon with two scientists watching a third writing a complicated mathematical formula on a blackboard. Between the two halves of the formula on the blackboard though are the words “And a Miracle Occurred”. One of the watching scientists says to the other “I think he needs to be a little more explicit on that second step”

    When asked about how something occurs in the world there is a natural tendency to say that this is so complicated and we currently have no clue to how it occurred that therefore God must have done it. However ignorance is proof of nothing but ignorance. To be able to really make that argument work you would have to show how we can distinguish between these four possibilities when faced with a difficult question:

    1) There is a natural explanation but we have not come up with the evidence needed to show us how to answer it or come up with the right way to look at the problem to solve it. Some examples would be Plate Tectonics and Einstein’s Theory of Relativity.

    2) There is a natural explanation but we do not have the tools needed to solve it. Examples are the Germ Theory of Disease (microscope) and most of Astronomy (telescope).

    3) There is a natural explanation but we will never be able to solve it because we just do not have the intelligence to do so. For example imagine one of our early ancestors – possibly Homo Erectus – sitting on the shores of the ocean. She notices the tides and wonders what causes them. However her intelligence is too limited for her to ever understand how the gravitational effects of the moon and sun cause the tides. Because of this she might conclude a god caused the tides when taking baths even though there is a natural explanation.

    4) God did it.

    Until we come with a way to reliable way distinguish between these four possible hypotheses then assuming that God did it stops our questioning too soon. If we had stopped with God causes disease to strike as punishment we would never have developed modern medicine. If we had stopped with God causes the lightning we would never have learned about electricity and developed lightning rods among many other useful benefits.

    For people of faith, using an unknown as evidence that God did it not only stops us from looking for answers too soon but also puts the idea of God at risk. What will the effect be on a person’s belief in God if part of that belief rested on ignorance and then we found a natural explanation? Does it put his faith at risk then? Ignorance is shaky ground to base a belief in God on. Or any other belief for that matter.

    To sum up then, scientists have to assume that there are natural explanations for whatever questions about the natural world they are studying. To do otherwise leaves them at great risk of missing out on a new discovery that will change the world – such as Einstein’s Theory of Relativity or Darwin’s Theory of Evolution. To do otherwise would destroy science.

    In regards to your statements about Lyell and Hutton. Have you ever gone back and read why they were looking only for natural explanations? About what in the history of science caused them to assume this attitude? I assure you that were you to look at their history and the history of their predecessors (especially Lyell, since he came late into the picture) you would find that the first assumptions of the early geologists were that the Bible would be confirmed by what they saw in the earth. Instead it was not.

    Let me also mention in regards to your statement about Lyell and Niagra Falls, I have not looked into it, but scientists are humans and humans make mistakes. Does this mean that everything that he did was mistaken? Einstein also made mistakes, some of them falling into the category of blunders. However this does not mean that his theory of relativity is not one of the best supported theories in the history of science (along with quantum theory and evolutionary theory).

    A couple of good books in this regard to the history of geology and evolution are “Evolution: The History of An Idea” by Peter J. Bowler and “Before Darwin: Reconciling God And Nature” by Keith Thomson.

    As for your criticism of radiometric dating, let me just quote a bit from the link you provided:

    “What would our geologist have thought if the date from the lab had been greater than 200 million years, say 350.5 ± 4.3 million years? Would he have concluded that the fossil date for the sediments was wrong? Not likely. Would he have thought that the radiometric dating method was flawed? No. Instead of questioning the method, he would say that the radiometric date was not recording the time that the rock solidified. He may suggest that the rock contained crystals (called xenocrysts) that formed long before the rock solidified and that these crystals gave an older date.3 He may suggest that some other very old material had contaminated the lava as it passed through the earth. Or he may suggest that the result was due to a characteristic of the lava—that the dyke had inherited an old ‘age’.”

    The two flaws here are 1) that your source does not tell you what follows next. The scientists does not, I repeat does not just assume that there is a flaw in his sample. Instead he looks for other evidence of a flaw in his sample. Or for flaws in how the radiometric testing was carried out. Until that is found the whole date is still up for question and not proved. 2) This sort of thing is very much the exception and not the rule as this article would make it seem.

    Further there is a reason that they might think the sample or testing was flawed. That is because for there is a large amount of evidence showing that radiometric dating is very accurate. If you have a hundred pieces of evidence for something and only one against then you might look carefully at the one piece to see if there is something wrong or not fully understood about it.

    You might like to check this link about radiometric dating written by a scientist who is also a Christian. It is meant for those Christians who want to openly look at the question of the reliability of radiometric dating methods. He also does a very good job of explaining why the various radiometric datings are considered reliable.

    http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html#page 22

    While most of the link is about radiometric dating he also has in this site a couple of short sections dealing with rightly handling the truth.
    “As Christians it is of great importance that we understand God’s word correctly. Yet from the middle ages up until the 1700s people insisted that the Bible taught that the Earth, not the Sun, was the center of the solar system. It wasn’t that people just thought it had to be that way; they actually quoted scriptures: “The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved” (Psalm 104:5), or “the sun stood still” (Joshua 10:13; why should it say the sun stood still if it is the Earth’s rotation that causes day and night?), and many other passages. I am afraid the debate over the age of the Earth has many similarities. But I am optimistic. Today there are many Christians who accept the reliability of geologic dating, but do not compromise the spiritual and historical inerrancy of God’s word. While a full discussion of Genesis 1 is not given here, references are given below to a few books that deal with that issue.

    As scientists, we deal daily with what God has revealed about Himself through the created universe. The psalmist marveled at how God, Creator of the universe, could care about humans: “When I consider Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and the stars, which You have set in place, what is man that You are mindful of him, the son of man that You care for him?” (Psalm 8:3-4). Near the beginning of the twenty-first century we can marvel all the more, knowing how vast the universe is, how ancient are the rocks and hills, and how carefully our environment has been designed. Truly God is more awesome than we can imagine! ”

    Let me just finish this rather long response (I have, unjustly of course, been accused of being rather long winded in the past.) by saying that I hope you do not disregard what I have written just because I am an atheist. I was not always one so I have some understanding of Christianity. I will also say that I used the same argument about reconciling scripture and science on a evolution/creation forum when arguing with a creationist about why evolution is not atheistic and had a couple of the Christians arguing for evolution mention how that perfectly describes their beliefs.

  4. Kathy said, on July 26, 2010 at 1:12 am

    I have, unjustly of course, been accused of being rather long winded in the past.
    Oh, dear — you too? 🙂 This sounds like it may get rather long, so I’ve changed the blog post to a wide theme, to accommodate the comments.

    Your analogy is not valid because God is not bound by the laws of nature. He created them and created the universe, so can go outside those bounds whenever He chooses (they’re called “miracles”). The basic Biblical/creationist position is that God set up the universe and all it contains, in the first 6 days of creation, the “Creation Week,” and after that has left the universe to operate under the natural laws He established, although He can and has intervened from time to time. There is no natural law I know of that would allow the instantaneous appearance of fully-formed creatures, so saying that “it’s not possible by the natural laws” is a big “No, duh!” and is pretty much what the Bible teaches — that God created the world and the creatures it contains without “natural laws”; and also that God created light on the earth prior to creating the sun, which also seems to defy natural laws. You must admit that that is a possibility.. You may believe it never happened, and we both agree that it does not follow natural law, but that doesn’t mean it is impossible, for “with God all things are possible.” You may believe that God does not exist, but even Richard Dawkins, when he had signs put up on British buses, he only went so far as to say, “There probably is no God,” because he recognized that to say *with certainty* that there is no god is a faith-based, rather than a fact-based position. Still, the creationists I know of would say that God’s creative works are finished, and they would seek to interpret the world by the laws He set up. Indeed, the early scientists were creationists and believed the Bible, with Galileo saying he was “thinking God’s thoughts after him,” as an example; and it was with the Christian belief in an omnipotent and unchanging God who set up the world that sparked the scientific revolution.

    “Evidence” does not exist in a vacuum; evidence is “interpreted data,” if you will. Let me give you an example. We’re trying to sell our house, and we have noted (accurately) that the dishwasher does not work. We had a showing on Saturday, and if the potential buyers looked into the dishwasher, they would have seen dishes inside. Does this mean that I was trying to deceive them by saying that the dishwasher didn’t work, when anyone could see the dishes inside? If they bought the house and later complained that the dishwasher didn’t work, could they charge me with deception because I had deliberately loaded the dishwasher to make it appear as if it did work? Of course not, because I had deliberately *un*deceived them by telling them the truth; it is not my fault if they chose to disbelieve what I said, instead believing the “evidence” of the dishes inside the dishwasher. Their interpretation of the data was faulty, based on imperfect understanding. As it turns out, I didn’t have enough time to wash and dry the breakfast dishes before they came to the house, so I hid them in the dishwasher, so the kitchen would appear clean. There could also have been at least one other interpretation, which is that occasionally I use the dishwasher as a drying rack for clean dishes that I have washed by hand. And I just thought of one more — perhaps someone who didn’t realize the dishwasher was broken could have loaded the dishwasher only to discover too late that it didn’t work, and just left it there. In all of these instances, the data remains the same (clean or dirty dishes in the broken dishwasher), yet it could be interpreted in different ways. And only the person who had enough knowledge about the situation (i.e., the person who put the dishes in the dishwasher to start with) would know for sure the correct interpretation.

    So, what we see in the earth (millions of layers of different types of earth and stone filled with fossils) is the data; but the interpretation of that data depends on your framework. There are at least two different interpretations: the Biblical Flood and millions/billions of years of deposition. [Btw, Creationists that I know of do not use a miracle to explain the Flood; they use natural laws to try to determine how the Flood occurred.] For you to say that there is no geological evidence of a worldwide flood is laughable. Everywhere in the world, there is evidence of watery catastrophe and rapid burial. Here is a list of some of these, including “quick” formation of many things that supposedly take millions of years to form, like rocks. This does not prove that all rocks formed in a short space of time, but it does prove that it is possible. A companion list would be 101 Evidences for a young earth/universe (a little bit of a misnomer, because some of these are, like the sandstone in the swimming pool filter are not strictly evidences that the earth/universe are necessarily young, but are merely evidences that millions of years are not required to make sandstone, limestone, etc.).

    Furthermore, if there really wasn’t a global flood and if God didn’t really create the universe, why do so many cultures have stories about creation and a global flood? — see here (scroll down), and the Chinese creation story, and the Chinese flood story and here, and <a href="http://creation.com/the-scars-of-a-nation"the dance of freedom from the Australian aborigines.

    Gotta go — I know I didn’t answer all of your comment, but will look at the remainder of it later as I have time.

  5. befuddled2 said, on July 26, 2010 at 2:28 am

    From the looks of things I am winning in the being long winded department.

    This is a rather quicker response than I normally do and is not quite as polished as I might like. But work has been keeping me busier than usual and since I am enjoying this conversation wanted to respond now rather than make you wait for a long period of time with bated breath. It is not good to bate your breath for long periods of time. Um, my family also accuses me of enjoying bad puns and questionable humor.

    Anyway.

    Let me first say that I do not claim that it is totally certain that God does not exist. Only that it is extremely improbable, with some versions being much more improbable than others.

    As for my analogy- if you are referring to my being in a room and it raining outside analogy I think you misunderstood the intent. I am using it to illustrate how a Christian can believe in evolution and still be a Christian, the sort of reasoning used so to speak.

    I said nothing about God not being able to do whatever he wants. In fact I explicitly stated that God can violate his natural laws. Instead this analogy speaks to the issue of determining when God allowed natural laws to work and when he intervened directly.

    Let me try to explain another way.

    In the Bible there are many passages not to be taken literally; metaphors, parables, poetry, etc. They all tell us something about God, humanity and the relationship between God and humanity. But they are not all to be taken literally.

    The Christian uses the world and the evidences it shows as a way to determine what should be taken metaphorically and what should be taken literally. If there is evidence against something having happened then they would view that statement or story in the Bible as non-literal.

    Let me make this distinction explicit. Christians know God can violate the laws he created. What counts though is the evidence. The Christian believes that their God is not a deceptive God who would lie to humanity. Therefore if there is evidence that the world is billions of years old then they know that Genesis 1 is not to betaken literally.

    It is not because it is against natural law but because the evidence in the world contradicts such a reading. Unless you want to posit a God who wanted to deceive humanity then Genesis 1 has to be taken as a metaphor meant to illuminate the relationship between the creator and the created.

    Your example of the flood story is a good case in point. If a global flood happened as depicted in the Bible there would be very clear cut evidence that it happened. Think of the asteroid that hit the earth and was responsible for the extinction of the dinosaurs – there is a clear world wide layer of iridium that is not found on earth. It occurs at the same layer and always with dinosaur fossils below it and none above . That is clear cut evidence.

    There is nothing comparable for a world wide flood. There are local floods and regional floods (both of which are more than capable of explaining the flood myths). You are right that there is evidence of flooding everywhere in the world – but not at the same time. Which is the key issue here. I

    I have read many accounts trying to explain through natural means the source of the waters for Noah’s flood and found that they all have severe problems:

    Here are some of the problems, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html

    “Vapor canopy. This model, proposed by Whitcomb & Morris and others, proposes that much of the Flood water was suspended overhead until the 40 days of rain which caused the Flood. The following objections are covered in more detail by Brown.
    · How was the water suspended, and what caused it to fall all at once when it did?
    · If a canopy holding the equivalent to more than 40 feet of water were part of the atmosphere, it would raise the atmospheric pressure accordingly, raising oxygen and nitrogen levels to toxic levels.
    · If the canopy began as vapor, any water from it would be superheated. This scenario essentially starts with most of the Flood waters boiled off. Noah and company would be poached. If the water began as ice in orbit, the gravitational potential energy would likewise raise the temperature past boiling.
    · A canopy of any significant thickness would have blocked a great deal of light, lowering the temperature of the earth greatly before the Flood.
    · Any water above the ozone layer would not be shielded from ultraviolet light, and the light would break apart the water molecules.
    Hydroplate. Walt Brown’s model proposes that the Flood waters came from a layer of water about ten miles underground, which was released by a catastrophic rupture of the earth’s crust, shot above the atmosphere, and fell as rain.
    · How was the water contained? Rock, at least the rock which makes up the earth’s crust, doesn’t float. The water would have been forced to the surface long before Noah’s time, or Adam’s time for that matter.
    · Even a mile deep, the earth is boiling hot, and thus the reservoir of water would be superheated. Further heat would be added by the energy of the water falling from above the atmosphere. As with the vapor canopy model, Noah would have been poached.
    · Where is the evidence? The escaping waters would have eroded the sides of the fissures, producing poorly sorted basaltic erosional deposits. These would be concentrated mainly near the fissures, but some would be shot thousands of miles along with the water. (Noah would have had to worry about falling rocks along with the rain.) Such deposits would be quite noticeable but have never been seen.
    Comet. Kent Hovind proposed that the Flood water came from a comet which broke up and fell on the earth. Again, this has the problem of the heat from the gravitational potential energy. The water would be steam by the time it reached the surface of the earth.
    Runaway subduction. John Baumgardner created the runaway subduction model, which proposes that the pre-Flood lithosphere (ocean floor), being denser than the underlying mantle, began sinking. The heat released in the process decreased the viscosity of the mantle, so the process accelerated catastrophically. All the original lithosphere became subducted; the rising magma which replaced it raised the ocean floor, causing sea levels to rise and boiling off enough of the ocean to cause 150 days of rain. When it cooled, the ocean floor lowered again, and the Flood waters receded. Sedimentary mountains such as the Sierras and Andes rose after the Flood by isostatic rebound. [Baumgardner, 1990a; Austin et al., 1994]
    · The main difficulty of this theory is that it admittedly doesn’t work without miracles. [Baumgardner, 1990a, 1990b] The thermal diffusivity of the earth, for example, would have to increase 10,000 fold to get the subduction rates proposed [Matsumura, 1997], and miracles are also necessary to cool the new ocean floor and to raise sedimentary mountains in months rather than in the millions of years it would ordinarily take.
    · Baumgardner estimates a release of 1028 joules from the subduction process. This is more than enough to boil off all the oceans. In addition, Baumgardner postulates that the mantle was much hotter before the Flood (giving it greater viscosity); that heat would have to go somewhere, too.
    · Cenozoic sediments are post-Flood according to this model. Yet fossils from Cenozoic sediments alone show a 65-million-year record of evolution, including a great deal of the diversification of mammals and angiosperms. [Carroll, 1997, chpts. 5, 6, & 13]
    · Subduction on the scale Baumgardner proposes would have produced very much more vulcanism around plate boundaries than we see. [Matsumura, 1997]
    New ocean basins. Most flood models (including those above, possibly excepting Hovind’s) deal with the water after the flood by proposing that it became our present oceans. The earth’s terrain, according to this model, was much, much flatter during the Flood, and through cataclysms, the mountains were pushed up and the ocean basins lowered. (Brown proposes that the cataclysms were caused by the crust sliding around on a cushion of water; Whitcomb & Morris don’t give a cause.)
    · How could such a change be effected? To change the density and/or temperature of at least a quarter of the earth’s crust fast enough to raise and lower the ocean floor in a matter of months would require mechanisms beyond any proposed in any of the flood models.
    · Why are most sediments on high ground? Most sediments are carried until the water slows down or stops. If the water stopped in the oceans, we should expect more sediments there. Baumgardner’s own modeling shows that, during the Flood, currents would be faster over continents than over ocean basins [Baumgardner, 1994], so sediments should, on the whole, be removed from continents and deposited in ocean basins. Yet sediments on the ocean basin average 0.6 km thick, while on continents (including continental shelves), they average 2.6 km thick. [Poldervaart, 1955]
    · Where’s the evidence? The water draining from the continents would have produced tremendous torrents. There is evidence of similar flooding in the Scablands of Washington state (from the draining of a lake after the breaking of an ice dam) and on the far western floor of the Mediterranean Sea (from the ocean breaking through the Straits of Gibralter). Why is such evidence not found worldwide?
    · How did the ark survive the process? Such a wholesale restructuring of the earth’s topography, compressed into just a few months, would have produced tsunamis large enough to circle the earth. The aftershocks alone would have been devastating for years afterwards.”

    In regards to your dishwasher analogy it is quite possible and often happens that a wrong conclusion is drawn based on insufficient evidence. However the solution for this is to do some more research and find more evidence that can resolve difficulties and uncertainties. In fact that is how science works. Scientists criticize each others works (sometimes quite… energetically) and each side goes out and does more research trying to find new evidence to show that they are right.
    The iridium layer that I mentioned as evidence of an asteroid impact is a good example of this. That was not a popular position when first proposed and had most of the scientific community against it. However as time went by those who supported the idea of an asteroid impact causing the extinction of the dinosaurs generated enough evidence (shocked quartz for example) for it happening and dealt with the objections against it that now the vast majority off scientists agree that it did happen.
    As for your links, I have seen most of them before and they are flawed and incorrect in a manner similar to that of your dating examples from the previous post.
    Let me just use one example, Mary Schweitzer’s findings of soft tissue in fossils.
    First I would like to point out that Mary Schweitzer is a Christian. From http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/dinosaur.html
    “Meanwhile, Schweitzer’s research has been hijacked by “young earth” creationists, who insist that dinosaur soft tissue couldn’t possibly survive millions of years. They claim her discoveries support their belief, based on their interpretation of Genesis, that the earth is only a few thousand years old. Of course, it’s not unusual for a paleontologist to differ with creationists. But when creationists misrepresent Schweitzer’s data, she takes it personally: she describes herself as “a complete and total Christian.” On a shelf in her office is a plaque bearing an Old Testament verse: “For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the Lord, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.””

    And

    “Young-earth creationists also see Schweitzer’s work as revolutionary, but in an entirely different way. They first seized upon Schweitzer’s work after she wrote an article for the popular science magazine Earth in 1997 about possible red blood cells in her dinosaur specimens. Creation magazine claimed that Schweitzer’s research was “powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.”

    This drives Schweitzer crazy. Geologists have established that the Hell Creek Formation, where B. rex was found, is 68 million years old, and so are the bones buried in it. She’s horrified that some Christians accuse her of hiding the true meaning of her data. “They treat you really bad,” she says. “They twist your words and they manipulate your data.” For her, science and religion represent two different ways of looking at the world; invoking the hand of God to explain natural phenomena breaks the rules of science. After all, she says, what God asks is faith, not evidence. “If you have all this evidence and proof positive that God exists, you don’t need faith. I think he kind of designed it so that we’d never be able to prove his existence. And I think that’s really cool.””

    If you read this link you will also find that it was an assumption that soft tissue would not be able to exist after several millions of years. An assumption that had really never been tested. Given that the age of the earth, the ways of determining the age of the earth, that evolution and so forth have been repeatedly tested which is more likely to be wrong – an untested assumption or well tested methodologies and theories?

    Well, since it is rapidly approaching my bed time and I have gone on for more than long enough I will let this be until I hear from you again.

    Enjoy.

    • Kathy said, on August 5, 2010 at 1:37 pm

      I too have been busy, which is why this reply has been so long in coming. And I am still busy, so this will be a short comment — not that we’re competing for comment length, I hope.

      “Let me make this distinction explicit. Christians know God can violate the laws he created. What counts though is the evidence. The Christian believes that their God is not a deceptive God who would lie to humanity. Therefore if there is evidence that the world is billions of years old then they know that Genesis 1 is not to betaken literally.

      It is not because it is against natural law but because the evidence in the world contradicts such a reading. Unless you want to posit a God who wanted to deceive humanity then Genesis 1 has to be taken as a metaphor meant to illuminate the relationship between the creator and the created. “
      This is precisely what the original analogy of the candle is meant to describe. Thank you for proving it very nicely. There was a lot of “evidence” that the candle had been burning longer than an hour or two, which contradicted the plain history given by the letter. Yet it is not Manuel’s fault that Mary misinterpreted the “evidence” and reached a faulty conclusion. She lifted the “evidence” above the testimony of one who was there; then when she found that her evidence, her interpretation of the data, was wrong, she charged Manuel with deliberate deception.

      If the plain reading of the creation account and the genealogies in Genesis are correct, then the earth cannot be billions of years old, so there must be another explanation for the “appearance of age” — just as there was another explanation for the “appearance of age” based on the amount of candle wax. Assuming the Bible to be correct, then anything which contradicts it is wrong. If the Bible is correct, then any interpretations of data that necessitate millions or billions (or even hundreds of thousands) of years must necessarily be wrong. If the universe is really only a few thousand years old, then there has been a tremendous amount of time and money wasted in exploring dead ends, and trying to prove them to be really living.

      As far as the iridium layer, it’s not as strong a proof as evolutionists would like to make people believe. Will take up other things as I have time.

  6. befuddled2 said, on August 6, 2010 at 11:38 pm

    In regards to your candle analogy, you are correct that initial evidence can be misleading. However just because evidence can at times be misleading does not mean that it is always misleading. Using your example I imagine that there are times when using the melting of the wax would actually provide accurate information. The trick is how to determine when it is accurate and when it is wrong.

    Your analogy does not prove that the evidence for evolution is wrong, it only points out the possibility that it could be. And I agree, it could be. But lots of things could be. What is important is what is. And currently the evidence strongly supports evolution and is strongly against a young earth.

    The only way to show that your candle analogy is correct in this case and that the current evidence is misleading is by searching for and looking at more evidence. Assumptions are not evidence.

    Lets also address the assumptions underlying your reliance on the written word over evidence by flipping this around a bit. Lets say that the evidence did favor a young earth and direct creation by God. However let us also pretend that a holy book – the Bikada (not real) – stated that the world was ancient. How convincing would you find it if a follower of the Bikada gave the candle analogy to show how the evidence showing a young earth could be flawed and then proceeded on the assumption that the evidence is flawed and that the writing in the Bikada is correct (after all it was written through direct inspiration to men by Bikadu who created the universe) without showing how the evidence is flawed?

    Should you really wish to prove your case you need to show that the many multiple lines of evidence for evolution and an ancient earth and universe are wrong. Further you have to show how the evidence also more strongly supports a young earth and direct creation to show how the evidence more strongly supports the idea of a young earth and direct creation rather than evolution and an ancient earth. I have read many such attempts and when I go back to the science articles and actual evidence I have found all such attempts flawed.

    Instead of going on at length let me just follow your example and keep this a short response and close by saying that when I brought up the iridium layer it was not as a proof of evolution but rather as an example of how a cataclysmic event would leave evidence behind, something lacking for a world wide flood.

    I read your link on the iridium layer and, again, there are serious issues with each of this site’s claim. I would be more than happy to discuss this or other evidence should you wish. Or discussing the other issues as you have time, something that can be in all too short a supply all too many times.

    • Kathy said, on August 7, 2010 at 1:36 am

      Should you really wish to prove your case you need to show that the many multiple lines of evidence for evolution and an ancient earth and universe are wrong.

      Actually, what one could do would be to examine the claims of and history in the book to see how accurate it was. If it claimed to be accurate yet could be shown to have false history, one could much more easily discount the other claims it made. For instance [I’ve not done much reading into Mormonism, but have come upon the topic from time to time] the Book of Mormon (or one of their other books) has historical claims which have been proven to be false — I think they claim that American Indians are descended from Jews, but genetic studies rebut this.

      There have been many archaeologists through the years who have wanted to disprove the Bible, or even had thought they had, and ultimately they were proven wrong. For instance, some 50 years ago, archaeologists were sure that the Bible was wrong when it talked about the Hittites, because they had no evidence of them other than the Biblical mentions. Then they uncovered a new site with absolute proof that Hittites were real, and lived exactly at the time the Bible said.

      Similarly, I recently saw/read a story of an archaeologist in Israel, who had uncovered in Jerusalem [my memory is failing me at the moment, but to the best of my recollection] an ancient wall or fortress or something, dated (by whatever dating method — carbon-dating I think, but perhaps looking at pottery shards or something like that) to the time of King David, just like the Bible said. But instead of accepting the dates as accurate, the archaeologist stumbled and mumbled around about how the dating results couldn’t be accurate because “we know” that civilizations at that time couldn’t possibly have constructed a wall/fortress/whatever like that. Is that an honest appraisal of the evidence? or a reading into the data whatever preconceived notions she had? She refused to believe her own evidence, because it conflicted with her prior beliefs — yet I’m supposed to believe that scientists are some sort of infallible people, who look at the evidence without bias, and come to the only right conclusion?

      Using your example I imagine that there are times when using the melting of the wax would actually provide accurate information. The trick is how to determine when it is accurate and when it is wrong.
      Yes. But unless you were there when the candle was lit, had the initial conditions for the candle (dimension, amount of wax already on the candle-holder), as well as being there for the whole time while the candle was burning to make sure the rate stayed constant, and then were there at the end [either you or you plus successive generations, in the case of hundreds of years], you will not be able to know for sure which interpretation of the data is the correct one.

      Creationists have been able to carbon-date diamonds, which evolutionists assume to billions of years old, and therefore would not have any C14 left in them to count. Creationists have tested rock which is dated by current assumptions and tests as being millions or billions of years old, yet have found helium in them — helium which should have all dissipated, were the rock really that old.

      Here’s another analogy. Let’s say you borrow a friend’s car, and you’re driving along, and happen to think about measuring how far it takes you to get from “here” to “there.” It measures 10 miles. Then you go from place to place, always making note of your distance, and the mileage seems very accurate. You drive at around the same average pace from place to place, and the longer it takes you to drive, the longer the distance your odometer measures. Accurate, right? Well, what if your friend has the wrong size tire, and that is affecting the measurement of the odometer? It is very consistent, but not accurate at all. It is internally extremely consistent, but is by outside measures wrong. How would you know that? By testing it with some method of whose accuracy you were guaranteed. At this point, you could do this by any number of methods in the car analogy, but how can you guarantee *any* method is accurate over the course of millions of years? Creationists have measured lava from known volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Saint Helens, and found that they usually measure in the hundreds of thousands of years old, using standard dating assumptions. If they’re inaccurate for volcanoes of known age, how can we trust the dating methods of those of unknown age?

  7. befuddled2 said, on August 8, 2010 at 6:04 pm

    Actually, what one could do would be to examine the claims of and history in the book to see how accurate it was. If it claimed to be accurate yet could be shown to have false history, one could much more easily discount the other claims it made. For instance [I’ve not done much reading into Mormonism, but have come upon the topic from time to time] the Book of Mormon (or one of their other books) has historical claims which have been proven to be false — I think they claim that American Indians are descended from Jews, but genetic studies rebut this.

    There have been many archaeologists through the years who have wanted to disprove the Bible, or even had thought they had, and ultimately they were proven wrong. For instance, some 50 years ago, archaeologists were sure that the Bible was wrong when it talked about the Hittites, because they had no evidence of them other than the Biblical mentions. Then they uncovered a new site with absolute proof that Hittites were real, and lived exactly at the time the Bible said.

    ————————————————————————————————————————

    This also applies to other works such as the Iliad. For many years archeologists and scientists thought that the book was totally mythical – that Troy did not exist, that the Trojan war did not happen, that Odysseus, Priam and the others made up. That was before Heinrich Schliemann discovered the remains of Troy based on evidence in the Iliad, complete with a layer showing burning and destruction of the right age to be that of the Trojan war.

    Does this mean that the Pantheon of Greek Gods depicted in the Iliad is also true?

    Further, there are problems with the Bible’s accuracy in many places. One example is the genocidal invasion of Canaan by Joshua. Joshua supposedly conquered the region within his lifetime and totally destroyed many cities. However the archeology does not support this.

    Some examples are the cities of Hazor and Lachish. Hazor was destroyed 100 years before Lachsish. In addition many of the cities listed in the Bible as being destroyed by Joshua were not occupied at that time – Jericho, Ai, Hormah, Heshbon, and Gibeon were destroyed hundreds of years ealier and not occupied again until after the events of Joshua.

    Further there is no archeological evidence of a great cultural change in this region as you would expect if the future Isrealites had destroyed the residents of Canaan and supplanted them.

    There are other issues with the history of the Bible. Further there is the whole question of even if the history is proved true is that enough evidence to prove the supernatural and the violations of natural law depicted in the Bible?

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Similarly, I recently saw/read a story of an archaeologist in Israel, who had uncovered in Jerusalem [my memory is failing me at the moment, but to the best of my recollection] an ancient wall or fortress or something, dated (by whatever dating method — carbon-dating I think, but perhaps looking at pottery shards or something like that) to the time of King David, just like the Bible said. But instead of accepting the dates as accurate, the archaeologist stumbled and mumbled around about how the dating results couldn’t be accurate because “we know” that civilizations at that time couldn’t possibly have constructed a wall/fortress/whatever like that. Is that an honest appraisal of the evidence? or a reading into the data whatever preconceived notions she had? She refused to believe her own evidence, because it conflicted with her prior beliefs — yet I’m supposed to believe that scientists are some sort of infallible people, who look at the evidence without bias, and come to the only right conclusion?

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    Without specifics I cannot give you a good response to the scientist. I will say though that it is not uncommon to find two pieces of evidence in conflict. What should and usually does happen at this point (and I would imagine that the scientist you saw did do this) is that the scientist decides that one is correct and the other either flawed or not interpreted correctly. He would make this judgment based on the total amount of evidence supporting one side or the other and also – as you pointed out – his own personal biases and beliefs.

    However, and this is the important part about science, he then has to resolve this by finding more evidence to support his position. He cannot leave it there and expect to be believed by the scientific community.

    Just as important he publishes his results and findings with a complete account of what he has found and his reasoning. Other scientists with different biases and beliefs get to read that and can disagree with him and present their reasoning and evidence.

    What results then is each side is looking for more evidence that can resolve this issue.

    No one has ever said that scientists are infallible people. However the strength of science as a method for determining information about the world is that it is a process that takes this into account and that, given time, can correct for these biases.

    Let me further state that I know of many archeologists that would have no issue with King David’s fortress being found. Given this why chose this one scientist as representative of all scientists. It can give the impression that this is an attempt to discredit science in general since science is not giving the desired results.
    Finally let me state that biases work both ways. You have a bias in that you strongly believe in a literal reading of the Bible. In science there is a method to control for an individual’s bias. I know of no such method in theology and religion.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    Creationists have been able to carbon-date diamonds, which evolutionists assume to billions of years old, and therefore would not have any C14 left in them to count. Creationists have tested rock which is dated by current assumptions and tests as being millions or billions of years old, yet have found helium in them — helium which should have all dissipated, were the rock really that old.

    —————————————————————————————————————————-

    Let me preface this by saying that my family (wife and two daughters) and I once spent about a year going through every creationist claim on science that we came across. Given that my wife and I are active on a couple of creation/evolution forums and that my younger daughter was corresponding with a gentleman who said he could scientifically prove that the earth was young we had plenty of material to go through.

    In every case, and I mean every, we found the statements wrong, misleading, incomplete, and inaccurate at best. Nowhere did we find anything that held up. In fact, it was concerning that some of the claims looked to have been a deliberate distortion of what the scientific papers referred to had actually found.

    Let me also say that at the end of my daughter’s correspondence with the creationist he admitted that he could not scientifically prove a young earth.

    Given this history a simple claim like what you have made above is not very convincing. Even though you did not provide a specific source for this I did some research and found where this claim about the carbon dating of diamonds came from.

    This claim about the carbon dating of diamonds comes from the Institute of Creation Research’s RATE project carried out by a Dr. Baumgardner. In reading over it and also over the responses to this study I have found the following flaws with it, information taken from

    http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=103916

    “Baumgardner (1) claims to present experimental data showing that all biological material contains intrinsic radiocarbon, no matter how old it is claimed to be. He makes additional weaker claims that even non-biological carbonaceous material contains intrinsic radiocarbon. He presents two classes of data. Firstly, he re-analyzes radiocarbon AMS dates published in peer-reviewed scientific literature. Secondly, he presents results of samples which RATE has collected and sent to a leading radiocarbon AMS lab to be dated. In both cases, I am convinced that his “intrinsic radiocarbon” is nothing more than contamination.

    Modern radiocarbon dating by AMS is a complex process with numerous opportunities for contamination. Taylor and Southon break the contamination into 7 general types, each of which can have multiple specific sources (2). The largest contamination component is generally the conversion of the sample to graphite; this introduces a small amount of modern carbon (typically at least 1 microgram (3)). Thus a 1mg sample of infinitely old carbon would measure at least 0.1 pMC (percent modern carbon) before background subtraction. Earlier techniques and malfunctioning equipment contribute more contamination. (Baumgardner does not seem to understand this; he wants to treat the quoted background from one of the leading modern labs as a constant value applicable to all labs and to all historic measurements.)

    Baumgardner’s first class of data is previously-published radiocarbon AMS dates which he has re-analyzed. He has divided the samples into two groups: Paleozoic geological samples, and Phanerozoic biological samples. He claims that the geological samples have a mean radiocarbon content of 0.06pMC and the biological have a content of 0.29 +/- 0.16 pMC (1). But he fails to note that all of their geological samples are actually of geological graphite, so did not undergo the graphitization process which was required for the biological samples. In fact, two geological samples (entries 21 and 40 in his Table 1) were omitted from Baumgardner’s geological data histogram; these were identical to other geological graphite samples (entries 62 and 79 respectively) but were re-graphitized in the lab as controlled measurements of contamination from the graphitization process. These tests yielded characterizations of 0.25 and 0.14 pMC contamination from the graphitization process. Entry 10 in Baumgardner’s Table 1 compares radiocarbon AMS with the older radiocarbon decay counting, giving a roughly 0.4 pMC contamination level for AMS, mostly from graphitization. In fact, many of Baumgardner’s references include systematic tests for contamination, with the graphitization process typically adding from 0.1 to 0.7 pMC (highly dependent on sample size and procedure). It is quite clear that the differences he sees between geological and biological samples is simply the contamination introduced by the graphitization process. Further, the radiocarbon content of his selectively plotted geological samples of <0.1 pMC is in excellent agreement with the instrument backgrounds characterized in many of his references. Thus, the geological samples give no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon.

    Baumgardner’s second class of data consists of samples which the RATE team has collected and sent to be analyzed. This includes a set of 10 coal samples (0.25 +/- 0.11 pMC) and a number of diamond samples (1). Both materials are problematic in general, and even more problematic in the specifics of the RATE samples.

    The expert who prepared and measured the RATE samples is convinced that the RATE coal samples were contaminated in situ. Coal is “notorious” for contamination, due to uranium which is often in or near the coal (especially a problem for N. Australian coals), from humic acids which are almost always present, and from microbial growth. The best coal dates reportedly come from anthracites with glassy surfaces, which have given dates as old as 70k years, or about 0.02 pMC.

    It is also possible that the coal samples were contaminated while in storage for an indeterminate time in a DOE geology lab refrigerator (1). Geology labs often have elevated levels of radiocarbon due to tracer studies, neutron activation studies, and dust from uranium-bearing rocks. Carbon is highly mobile and contamination can spread through an entire lab and persist for decades (4). (I have seen a badly contaminated sample which was traced to storage in a geology lab refrigerator.)

    The diamond samples were difficult to graphitize, and apparently required some modifications to the normal procedure (1). This likely increased the contamination. In addition, the samples themselves were reportedly pitted and appeared to have been subjected to previous analyses of some sort. Nevertheless, the 5 deep-mine diamond samples were only slightly above background levels (0.01 to 0.07 pMC after background subtraction), while the 7 alluvial samples ranged from 0.03 to 0.31 pMC after background subtraction. Subsequently, this lab has inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the graphitization process, and has measured much older dates (unpublished). Taylor and Southon have measured 0.005 to 0.03 pMC by the same technique, which they interpret as their instrument background (2). This gives strong evidence that the RATE diamond samples were contaminated, either by previous testing or by graphitization.

    Thus it is clear that the previous peer-reviewed radiocarbon AMS measurements can be explained by contamination, mostly in the graphitization process. The recent RATE coal samples were probably contaminated in situ, and the diamond samples were either contaminated in the graphitization process or by previous analyses. In any case, other coal and diamond samples have been measured at essentially the instrument background levels, giving no evidence for intrinsic radiocarbon. RATE’s claim that all carbonaceous material contains intrinsic radiocarbon is not supported by the data.

    Kirk Bertsche
    accelerator physicist, formerly at a leading radiocarbon AMS laboratory"

    In summary it looks as if his samples were not treated properly and were contaminated.

    What is really interesting here is that the responses I have read from creationists to these criticisms. They basically blows it off as the result of biases and prejudices. That right there is enough to tell me that he is most likely wrong.

    Remember what I said earlier about science publishing their results and then resolving their disagreements through the finding of more evidence? That is not happening with Baumgardner.

    Disputes on dating, while not common, are also not unknown. Dating is a difficult process and depending on the element being dated and where it is taken from, can be prone to contamination.

    What usually happens in cases of disputed dates is that the one who disagrees with the reading gives his reasons why. Then the one who supports those dates tries to find more evidence and get it in such a way as to rule out any possibility of those objections being true.

    I can think of several cases where this is exactly what happened. However I do not see any sign that Baumgartner is trying to get samples and test them in such as way as to rule out the possible sources of contamination mentioned above.

    This is a common problem I see with Creationists. They can land a blow but they are lousy counter-punchers. They cannot respond to the inevitable criticisms of their argument and take it as evidence of bias, discrimination, etc. instead of realizing that this is how science works. Indeed this is integral to the whole process of ensuring that biases do not distort the evidence and that the evidence is interpreted and analyzed correctly.

    To be a good scientist you have to be able to counter punch.

    To put it another way science can be viewed as a controlled way of arguing about how the world works involving displaying openly all your data and interpretations so it can be criticized and then responding to such criticism by the use of new data, new evidences, and new analysis that take those criticisms into account. Eventually enough evidence and data accumulate so that the issue is resolved.

    —————————————————————————————————————————

    How would you know that? By testing it with some method of whose accuracy you were guaranteed. At this point, you could do this by any number of methods in the car analogy, but how can you guarantee *any* method is accurate over the course of millions of years? Creationists have measured lava from known volcanic eruptions such as Mt. Saint Helens, and found that they usually measure in the hundreds of thousands of years old, using standard dating assumptions. If they’re inaccurate for volcanoes of known age, how can we trust the dating methods of those of unknown age?

    ————————————————————————————————————————–

    Let me first state that I do not have the time currently to do more research about the dating of lava. Given what I have already posted though I have very little doubt that it is flawed. If you wish to pursue it at a later date let me know and I will do the research.

    As for radiometric dating methods, here is something from this site – written by a Christian by the way. In fact its titled Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective

    http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

    "We have covered a lot of convincing evidence that the Earth was created a very long time ago. The agreement of many different dating methods, both radiometric and non-radiometric, over hundreds of thousands of samples, is very convincing. Yet, some Christians question whether we can believe something so far back in the past. My answer is that it is similar to believing in other things of the past. It only differs in degree. Why do you believe Abraham Lincoln ever lived? Because it would take an extremely elaborate scheme to make up his existence, including forgeries, fake photos, and many other things, and besides, there is no good reason to simply have made him up. Well, the situation is very similar for the dating of rocks, only we have rock records rather than historical records. Consider the following:

    · There are well over forty different radiometric dating methods, and scores of other methods such as tree rings and ice cores.

    · All of the different dating methods agree–they agree a great majority of the time over millions of years of time. Some Christians make it sound like there is a lot of disagreement, but this is not the case. The disagreement in values needed to support the position of young-Earth proponents would require differences in age measured by orders of magnitude (e.g., factors of 10,000, 100,000, a million, or more). The differences actually found in the scientific literature are usually close to the margin of error, usually a few percent, not orders of magnitude!

    · Vast amounts of data overwhelmingly favor an old Earth. Several hundred laboratories around the world are active in radiometric dating. Their results consistently agree with an old Earth. Over a thousand papers on radiometric dating were published in scientifically recognized journals in the last year, and hundreds of thousands of dates have been published in the last 50 years. Essentially all of these strongly favor an old Earth.

    · Radioactive decay rates have been measured for over sixty years now for many of the decay clocks without any observed changes. And it has been close to a hundred years since the uranium-238 decay rate was first determined.

    · Both long-range and short-range dating methods have been successfully verified by dating lavas of historically known ages over a range of several thousand years.

    · The mathematics for determining the ages from the observations is relatively simple.

    The last three points deserve more attention. Some Christians have argued that something may be slowly changing with time so all the ages look older than they really are. The only two quantities in the exponent of a decay rate equation are the half-life and the time. So for ages to appear longer than actual, all the half-lives would have to be changing in sync with each other. One could consider that time itself was changing if that happened (remember that our clocks are now standardized to atomic clocks!). And such a thing would have to have occurred without our detection in the last hundred years, which is already 5% of the way back to the time of Christ.

    Beyond this, scientists have now used a "time machine" to prove that the half-lives of radioactive species were the same millions of years ago. This time machine does not allow people to actually go back in time, but it does allow scientists to observe ancient events from a long way away. The time machine is called the telescope.

    Because God's universe is so large, images from distant events take a long time to get to us. Telescopes allow us to see supernovae (exploding stars) at distances so vast that the pictures take hundreds of thousands to millions of years to arrive at the Earth.

    So the events we see today actually occurred hundreds of thousands to millions of years ago. And what do we see when we look back in time? Much of the light following a supernova blast is powered by newly created radioactive parents. So we observe radiometric decay in the supernova light. The half-lives of decays occurring hundreds of thousands of years ago are thus carefully recorded! These half-lives completely agree with the half-lives measured from decays occurring today. We must conclude that all evidence points towards unchanging radioactive half-lives.

    Some individuals have suggested that the speed of light must have been different in the past, and that the starlight has not really taken so long to reach us. However, the astronomical evidence mentioned above also suggests that the speed of light has not changed, or else we would see a significant apparent change in the half-lives of these ancient radioactive decays.

    Doubters Still Try

    Some doubters have tried to dismiss geologic dating with a sleight of hand by saying that no rocks are completely closed systems (that is, that no rocks are so isolated from their surroundings that they have not lost or gained some of the isotopes used for dating).

    Speaking from an extreme technical viewpoint this might be true–perhaps 1 atom out of 1,000,000,000,000 of a certain isotope has leaked out of nearly all rocks, but such a change would make an immeasurably small change in the result. The real question to ask is, "is the rock sufficiently close to a closed system that the results will be same as a really closed system?"

    Since the early 1960s many books have been written on this subject. These books detail experiments showing, for a given dating system, which minerals work all of the time, which minerals work under some certain conditions, and which minerals are likely to lose atoms and give incorrect results. Understanding these conditions is part of the science of geology.

    Geologists are careful to use the most reliable methods whenever possible, and as discussed above, to test for agreement between different methods.

    Some people have tried to defend a young Earth position by saying that the half-lives of radionuclides can in fact be changed, and that this can be done by certain little-understood particles such as neutrinos, muons, or cosmic rays. This is stretching it. While certain particles can cause nuclear changes, they do not change the half-lives. The nuclear changes are well understood and are nearly always very minor in rocks. In fact the main nuclear changes in rocks are the very radioactive decays we are talking about.

    There are only three quite technical instances where a half-life changes, and these do not affect the dating methods we have discussed.

    1. Only one technical exception occurs under terrestrial conditions, and this is not for an isotope used for dating. According to theory, electron-capture is the most likely type of decay to show changes with pressure or chemical combination, and this should be most pronounced for very light elements. The artificially-produced isotope, beryllium-7 has been shown to change by up to 1.5%, depending on its chemical environment (Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 171, 325-328, 1999; see also Earth Planet. Sci. Lett. 195, 131-139, 2002). In another experiment, a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth (Science 181, 1163-1164, 1973). All known rocks, with the possible exception of diamonds, are from much shallower depths. In fact, beryllium-7 is not used for dating rocks, as it has a half-life of only 54 days, and heavier atoms are even less subject to these minute changes, so the dates of rocks made by electron-capture decays would only be off by at most a few hundredths of a percent.

    2. Physical conditions at the center of stars or for cosmic rays differ very greatly from anything experienced in rocks on or in the Earth. Yet, self-proclaimed "experts" often confuse these conditions. Cosmic rays are very, very high-energy atomic nuclei flying through space. The electron-capture decay mentioned above does not take place in cosmic rays until they slow down. This is because the fast-moving cosmic ray nuclei do not have electrons surrounding them, which are necessary for this form of decay. Another case is material inside of stars, which is in a plasma state where electrons are not bound to atoms. In the extremely hot stellar environment, a completely different kind of decay can occur. ' Bound-state beta decay' occurs when the nucleus emits an electron into a bound electronic state close to the nucleus. This has been observed for dysprosium-163 and rhenium-187 under very specialized conditions simulating the interior of stars (Phys. Rev. Lett., 69, 2164-2167; Phys. Rev. Lett., 77, 5190-5193, 1996). All normal matter, such as everything on Earth, the Moon, meteorites, etc. has electrons in normal positions, so these instances never apply to rocks, or anything colder than several hundred thousand degrees.

    As an example of incorrect application of these conditions to dating, one young-Earth proponent suggested that God used plasma conditions when He created the Earth a few thousand years ago. This writer suggested that the rapid decay rate of rhenium under extreme plasma conditions might explain why rocks give very old ages instead of a young-Earth age. This writer neglected a number of things, including: a) plasmas only affect a few of the dating methods. More importantly, b) rocks and hot gaseous plasmas are completely incompatible forms of matter! The material would have to revert back from the plasma state before it could form rocks. In such a scenario, as the rocks cooled and hardened, their ages would be completely reset to zero as described in previous sections. If this person's scenario were correct, instead of showing old ages, all the rocks should show a uniform ~4,000 year age of creation. That is obviously not what is observed.

    3. The last case also involves very fast-moving matter. It has been demonstrated by atomic clocks in very fast spacecraft. These atomic clocks slow down very slightly (only a second or so per year) as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity. No rocks in our solar system are going fast enough to make a noticeable change in their dates.
    These cases are very specialized, and all are well understood. None of these cases alter the dates of rocks either on Earth or other planets in the solar system. The conclusion once again is that half-lives are completely reliable in every context for the dating of rocks on Earth and even on other planets. The Earth and all creation appears to be very ancient."

    Well, it looks as if I am on the long side of things again. Sorry about that, just trying to provide the details that support an old earth and show the creationist research flawed. I also posted a lot from other sites, in this case for two reasons.

    First they said it as well as I could. Second if I posted just the link you would have to go through a lot of material before getting to the sections I considered most relevant to answer your points. The link is there for you to explore should you have the desire to do so. The Radiometric Dating link is an excellent site for getting an overview on dating.

    • Kathy said, on August 8, 2010 at 9:53 pm

      I haven’t even read your entire lengthy comment, but will get to it. Just wanted to comment on a few points. First, there is some argument even among Christian scholars, as well as between secular and Christian scholars, as to the time of the Exodus. The accuracy of the time-line of Egyptian chronology is being questioned, with many scholars now recognizing that some of the pharaohs were either co-regents or ruled separate parts of Egypt at the same time (rather than being all consecutive). Some historians have given two or even three dates of the Israeli Exodus from Egypt, separated by hundreds of years. I think based on the similarity in the sound of one of the Pharaoh’s name (Shishak? something like that), that a particular Pharaoh mentioned as living at such-and-such time in the Bible was linked to a Pharaoh known from Egyptian history. However, other scholars reject this idea as being a mistake, so they have searched other records, and have come up with one or more potential “Exodus Pharaohs”, living at other times, which they say better suits the chronology. [In one of the Bibles I own, there are “study notes,” and it includes discussion on this, saying that “liberal” scholars prefer the later date, while “conservative” scholars prefer the earlier date.] The earlier date would better suit a lot of the other history and chronology based on archaeological finds. So, your assertion that “no one was living there for hundreds of years” at the time of the Exodus may be based on a false date for Exodus.

      You specifically said that “Hazor was destroyed 100 years before Lachish.” In the Biblical account, Hazor was burned with fire, but most of the other cities were left alone. If the people inside the cities were killed but the cities themselves were unharmed, would you expect archaeological evidence of a destroyed city?

      Skipping to the diamonds — what I read in the rebuttal is assertion of *belief*, not *facts*. The man cannot *believe* that there would be carbon left in diamonds, so the only other possible answer for why datable carbon could be there, is contamination. There appeared to be no evidence advanced of any contamination, yet the man believes it was contaminated. Because of his prior belief that diamonds cannot contain datable carbon. It is the same assertion given for any sample that does not correspond to the dates assigned to it by “field study.” Rather than suggesting there is something wrong with the testing method, or that the rock may not be as old/young as it appears, if anything falls outside the preconceived notions, it is discarded as contaminated, or in some other way unusable. This would work if we were certain of the time frame (for instance, trying to determine the date when a man died, which could not have been more than 9 months prior to the birth of his youngest child; or determining when a birth occurred, which could not have been later than within a few minutes of the death of the mother); but as it is, it has become a grand scheme of circular reasoning — the rocks date the fossils, and the fossils date the rocks. Whenever a fossil occurs in the “wrong” layer, there is one of half a dozen excuses given as to why it’s there; or occasionally, suddenly, the whole evolutionary scheme of things is juggled around, so that suddenly a creature went from living 100-165 million years ago to 76-180 million years ago. Don’t get me wrong — I don’t fault evolutionists for altering their notions based on evidence — but I do fault them for making bold assertions of “what really happened… we’re really sure, this time!” when they don’t and can’t know *for sure* because they do not and cannot have all of the evidence. Let me give you an example to clarify, using evolutionist dating as if it were accurate, for the sake of argument. There is a fossilized creature whose remains are found in rock dated 150 million years ago [mya]. Then another of the same fossil is found in rock dated 165 mya. “Aha!” says the evolutionist, “This creature lived 150 and died out 165 mya! We’re sure of it, because this is the evidence we have.” Well, okay, that’s the evidence they found. But that’s not all the evidence they could possibly find, is it? What the evolutionist should say is, “This creature is found in rocks dated 150-165 mya, so we know it was alive at least then. But of course it could have lived earlier or later than that, without leaving fossils behind.” That’s not what they say — at least, not to the great unwashed masses, and certainly not to school children. There are creatures that are referred to as “living fossils,” because they were known only by the fossil record and were thought to be extinct. Yet after 100+ million years (supposedly), they are suddenly discovered to be not extinct after all, but alive and well. If these creatures — as diverse as the coelecanth and a type of pine (wollemi?) can have escaped fossilization for hundreds of millions of years, what else might have escaped fossilization before or after that time, but still lived? Evolutionists are all for that idea, when it comes to the tremendous diversity of creatures that just suddenly appear in the fossil record, with no ancestors that link them with more primitive creatures prior to that time. Without any evidence to link this type of creature with that type, or these two creatures with a known older creature as a common ancestor, they still insist that they know what happened, and that there just must not have been fossilization of these creatures that must have existed (without evidence, of course, but let’s not let the lack of evidence get in the way of a good story, shall we?) just didn’t happen to occur. They’re sure of what happened, even though they have no evidence. And this is called science. Hmm. But then, when there is no evidence of dinosaurs (or other creatures) existing past a certain time period, that is given as proof positive that they went extinct after that time (except when, oops, another “living fossil” is discovered). Data and interpretation are mixed together so much and given as “fact,” and most people don’t even recognize it when it happens.

      Re: Wiens’ dating paper — here’s a creationist rebuttal: http://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

  8. befuddled2 said, on August 15, 2010 at 4:49 pm

    This is going to be lengthy (surprise suprise) so let me just focus on the science part for now and the carbon dating of diamonds for now. At first it will be a general overview and then I will get into the specifics of what we have been discussing.

    Let me start by restating that one good definition of science is that it is a controlled process of debate with the goal of providing ever more reliable information about how the natural world works. Part of that process involves criticizing other scientists and responding to those criticisms.

    One of the reasons scientists publish papers is to let other scientists know what they have found. But another, equally important reason, is so other scientists can review it and criticize it and express reasons why they might disagree either with the research itself or with the interpretation given it. This is not only expected but an integral part of how science is done. Without this science would not work.

    You have mentioned biases and you are quite correct that each scientist has his own bias and viewpoint and that no matter how hard they might try to remain objective these can leak through at times. However that is what this public process of critique seeks to correct. By putting their work out there for criticism and being forced to defend their work these biases are largely corrected for once the process has run its course.

    You will find this sort of discussion, argument, and disagreements going on in every issues of every science journal, in every scientific conference, in every scientific meeting. There are an abundance of examples that I could give to illustrate this but let me just mention two.

    Perhaps the most famous of these were the debates between Albert Einstein and Niels Bohr over Quantum Physics. Einstein had strong reservations about Quantum Physics despite being one of the founders of this branch of physics. He felt that it was incomplete. To prove this he raised a series of objections to it that he felt illustrated fundamental flaws in how Quantum Theory was viewed.

    Niels Bohr responded to those criticisms. He did NOT respond, “Well Albert, that is just your opinion.” He dealt with the problems that Einstein brought up and showed how Einstein was wrong. This took quite a while because the objections and criticisms Einstein brought up were subtle and also very real. However Bohr did answer them and in so doing strengthened the whole basis of Quantum Physics.

    Now this debate was more in the realm of theory but it was based on experimental evidence. Another example directly involving fieldwork and evidence involves early work of Louis Leakey in Africa.

    In 1933 Louis found announced the find of a new hominid species, Homo Kanamensis, based on some fossils found in the Kanam fossil beds in Africa. At the time most scientists believed that the human species was a relatively recent species whereas Louis thought the split occurred much further back in time. His dating of this fossil provided evidence for his views and many quickly lauded him for his find. However not everyone.

    As is usual some disagreed and expressed their reservations. The main criticism was the evidence for where the fossil was found and its dating. The leader of this group was a geologist named P.G. H. Boswell. Again Louis did not blow off Boswell’s criticisms as just opinion. Instead he tried to answer them by taking Boswell out to the site in Africa where the fossils were found.

    However this did not turn out well for Louis. The stakes that he had left to mark were the fossils were found were gone (they were iron and the natives in the area had a use for iron and had taken the stakes). The camera that Louis had used to take pictures of the area was defective and the pictures did not turn out.

    Of course Boswell then reported in an issue Nature that Leakey could not back up his claims about his fossil’s great antiquity. Further he stated that Kanjera sediments were slumped due to gravity flow while wet, and thus provided no reliable stratigraphy in which the fossils could be placed as either older or younger.o

    Louis learned from this and afterwards became quite fanatical about documenting where his fossils were found. He was later proven to be correct in regards to the antiquity of our ancestry. However at this time his evidence did not hold up and his reputation took a severe hit.

    Again this is a process that goes on daily in science and is integral to its success. It is something that creationists do not do very well at all. They do some research and make a claim but then they cannot defend their research and conclusions against the criticism that they get, the criticism that is an integral part of science. It makes them poor scientists.

    In regards to Bertsche’s criticisms of the Creation Research’s carbon dating research: First it doesn’t really matter whether it is just his opinion or not. Blowing it off is not an option if you are really doing science. The Creation Research, were they really interested in doing science, would need to respond in detail showing how his criticisms are wrong. If needed another expeimernt would be carried out with procedures in place that explicitely control for the very problems Bertsche pointed out.

    Second Bertsche’s criticisms are not just his ideas and opinions. Examples:

    “But he fails to note that all of their geological samples are actually of geological graphite, so did not undergo the graphitization process which was required for the biological samples.”

    And

    “It is quite clear that the differences he sees between geological and biological samples is simply the contamination introduced by the graphitization process. Further, the radiocarbon content of his selectively plotted geological samples of <0.1 pMC is in excellent agreement with the instrument backgrounds characterized in many of his references. Thus, the geological samples give no evidence of intrinsic radiocarbon."

    He notes a process violation here that is required to date biological samples. He notes that when this is taken into account it agrees with the instrument background checks done in his references – a fact which further supports his criticism. This is not opinion.

    Next he notes that there are issues in dating carbon and diamonds and that it is difficult to get uncontaminated samples for these substances. This is not merely opinion but based on history. Further he explains why this is so – uranium deposits which are often near coal deposits, humic acids which is always present, and from microbial growth.

    He also notes a further potential source of contamination:
    "It is also possible that the coal samples were contaminated while in storage for an indeterminate time in a DOE geology lab refrigerator (1). Geology labs often have elevated levels of radiocarbon due to tracer studies, neutron activation studies, and dust from uranium-bearing rocks. Carbon is highly mobile and contamination can spread through an entire lab and persist for decades (4). (I have seen a badly contaminated sample which was traced to storage in a geology lab refrigerator.) "
    Again this is fact and not opinion and nothing in the Creation Research's paper shows that they controlled for these facts. Further there are problems with the samples themselves.

    "The diamond samples were difficult to graphitize, and apparently required some modifications to the normal procedure."

    In other words normal procedures were not followed. Fact again.

    "In addition, the samples themselves were reportedly pitted and appeared to have been subjected to previous analyses of some sort."

    Again a fact that needs to be explained since if it already been analyzed once that could effect the results.

    He also mentions another test that was done that lends credence to the idea that the samples were contaminated.

    "Subsequently, this lab has inserted diamond directly into an ion source, eliminating the graphitization process, and has measured much older dates (unpublished). Taylor and Southon have measured 0.005 to 0.03 pMC by the same technique, which they interpret as their instrument background (2). This gives strong evidence that the RATE diamond samples were contaminated, either by previous testing or by graphitization."

    In summary his criticisms were not just opinions and need to be answered. What the Creation Research needs to do is to redo the dating with controls in place to control for each of these sources of contamination. That would be an effective rebuttal of Bertsche's criticisms. That is what the vast majority of scientists would do and have done when faced with similar criticisms.

    Howeve this is something that the Creation Research does not seem interested in doing, I would guess because they are not really interested in doing science but rather more concerned with disguising religious belief as science.

    In summary let me point out that scientists always critcize others research. When you mention a finding you dislike and claim that it is just accepted without question or debate you are incorrect. I picked out the Leakey example to show that this holds even in the field of human evolution since you mentioned that specifically.

    By the way there is a lot more going in regards to human evolution research than what you have posted. There are multiple lines of evidence, investigations, questioning, challenges, and research. I am really having to hold myself in here as I at one time was going to become an archeologist specializing in early human evolution and your critique of it was very superficial and very wrong.

    However despite my intense interest in human evolution I limited this response to how science works as I feel this is a basic area of misunderstanding on the whole process of science and needed to be corrected first.

    Let me also note that there are severe problems with the creationist rebuttal link you posted against radiometric dating methods but given the length of this response let me keep that for another day.

    If it would be OK with you I would like to respond both to the human evolution criticism and the radiometric dating criticism at a later date. That way I can keep these responses to a more reasonable length and keep a better focus. It may take a while for me to respond as my work has gotten crazy busy and I have some personal items (fun ones thank goodness) to take care of too.

  9. kandika said, on September 19, 2010 at 6:06 pm

    God DID CREATE the world in 6 days…..if you notice, the number 6 is in time [60 sec is a min 60 min is an hour] snowflakes, bees, and wasps, creates in a 6 SIDED SHAPE; if a person looks hard enough, they could find many things like that—soil has three types and atmosphere has basically 4 types—the human spine has 3 types of vertabrae [cervical which are 7; thoracic which are 12 and lumbar which are 5] those 3 numbers are significant 7 are days, 12 is the number of government [time and music] and 5 are foundation….oops, i forgot, the meninges which covers the brain and spinal cord has 3 layers, the eyeball has 3 layers as well …..Many ‘evolutionist type’ scientists became Christian from researching how GOD put patterns in creation

  10. kandika said, on September 19, 2010 at 6:09 pm

    oh yes…..CARBON DATING ISNT AN EXACT SCIENCE AS WELL…..many factors are involved in that, if a person is willing to look hard enough—-finally..JESUS SPOKE ABOUT ADAM AND EVE and also studied the TORAH; he wouldnt have sacrificed himself if it was a “symbol”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: