Radiometric Dating – Creation Perspective

 

Creationists do admit that radioactive decay has occurred, but “it is important to understand the simple, fundamental principle behind all dating methods, and why they are not able to produce objective, absolute dates…The fatal flaw is that all scientific measurements are made in the present, whereas a date relates to a time in the past. We cannot go back into the past to measure all the parameters we need in order to do the dating calculation. Hence, all these parameters must be assumed—always. There is no other way.”[i] Naturalists still make assumptions even if they try to say that they don’t have to know initial conditions.

There are many assumptions that have to be made when using radiometric dating methods that might make these techniques unreliable. If any of these assumptions are wrong, then the reliability of the testing method can and should be put in question. The three main assumptions that affect the results of radiometric dating are: 1) the rate of decay has always been constant, 2) there has been no contamination (no movement of elements into or out of the object over time), and 3) we can determine how much daughter element there was to begin with.[ii]

There are many test results that make the reliability of these dating techniques very questionable.[iii] Naturalists try to explain these questionable results, but still can’t adequately explain them from their worldview.[iv] Evidence from “as far back as 1971” may show “that high pressure could increase decay rates very slightly for at least 14 isotopes.”[v] Naturalists even admit that radiocarbon dating does not work on living mussels because of the lack of new carbon in that environment. So what other situations and conditions create unreliable results that we must also throw out the dating because of?

In radiocarbon dating, there is limited precision and “given the way the atmospheric radiocarbon concentration has varied [based on tree ring dating results], there might be several possible ranges” of dates for the object being analyzed.[vi]

Plants and trees that are near volcanic areas appear older because the carbon they absorb will be older, from underground, and thus should have very little if any C-14. “The widespread emanation of 14C-free volcanogenic carbon dioxide after the Flood would have further inflated the carbon-14 dates of tree rings in a systematic manner in many parts of the world.”[vii] Naturalists have to assume whether wood remains were near volcanic vents or not. We would expect more volcanic activity due to the effects of the flood, naturalists would not expect or account for that.

There is also a lot of evidence that there is too much C-14 within supposedly old materials.[viii] C-14, which can’t last more than 100,000 years, has been found in coal, in oil, in fossils, in fossil wood, in diamonds, and even in deep strata where it should not exist.[ix] This evidence is above what naturalists can simply claim as contamination.

st-helens-crater

Crater at Mount St. Helens

Geologist Dr Steve Austin dated rocks from two lava flows in two different layers in the Grand Canyon and found the lower (older) rocks to be 270 million years younger than the higher (younger) rocks.[x] “A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.” “Similar conflict was found by researchers in Hawaii. A lava flow which is known to have taken place in 1800-1801—less than 200 years ago—was dated by potassium-argon” as being around 1.5 million years old or more.[xi] 11 different rock samples were taken from 3 different eruptions (1949, 1954, 1975) of Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand and “the ‘ages’ of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.”[xii] Also, “the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!”[xiii] So if radiometric dating doesn’t even work on things of known age, is it reliable to determine accurate dates for things of unknown ages?

Different radiometric dating methods, on the same materials, often give very different results as evidenced by Mt. Ngauruhoe.[xiv] “The Grand Canyon was once dated at 6 million years, but recently scientists revised the date to 17 million years. A few weeks later, because of a different radiometric dating method using the phosphate mineral called apatite, scientists concluded that the last of the dinosaurs may have wandered around the canyon 65 million years ago.”[xv] “Rock samples brought back from the moon were tested and dated. Some were only millions of years old, while others were 28 billion years old.”[xvi]

“Conflicting radioactive dating results are reported all the time and, on their own, there is no way of knowing what they mean. So geologists research how other geologists have interpreted the other rocks in the area in order to find out what sort of dates they would expect. Then they invent a story to explain the numbers as part of the geological history of the area.”[xvii]

One evolutionary researcher said “For this complex, laboratory-based dating to be successful, the data must be compatible with the external field evidence.” In other words “you don’t just accept a laboratory date without question. It’s not the last word on the age of something. You only accept the date if it agrees with what you already think it should be.”[xviii]

A lot of radioactive decay does seem to be observed as evidenced by radiohalos and other marks. “For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite yields a uranium-lead ‘age’ of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.”[xix] Helium is created in radioactive decay reactions and should leak out of rocks rather quickly. “The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago,”[xx] possibly at the time of the flood. “A period of accelerated decay would also solve the puzzle of the amount of heat emanating from the Earth—an amount consistent with the amount of radioactive decay that has occurred, but not with a billions of years timescale.”[xxi]

“Since 1955 the estimate for the age of the Earth has been based on the assumption that certain meteorite lead isotope ratios are equivalent to the primordial lead isotope ratios on Earth. In 1972 this assumption was shown to be highly questionable. Despite this, the momentum gained in the two decades prior to 1972 has made 4.5 b.y. a popularly accepted “universal constant” even though the foundations on which it was based have been virtually removed.”[xxii]

“Other data based on radioisotopes give estimates ranging from comparatively young ages to billions of years more than 4.6 billion years. There are dozens of natural chronometers based on the principle of uniformity (not accounting for a catastrophic flood) that give estimates for the age of the earth ranging from less than 10,000 years to millions of years. The majority of these chronometers give ages vastly younger than the presently accepted evolutionary age for the earth.”[xxiii]

Also, currently there is still a lot of radioactive material on the earth that “accounts for half of Earth’s heat.” So from an old earth view, there would have been a lot more radioactive material and thus more radiation and heat in the past. Would that higher dosage of radiation and heat have been harmful or helpful to evolution?[xxiv]

Naturalistic scientists have used many methods to try to figure out when the supernovae created the majority of uranium, and naturalists say “that the results from the various methods used are independently derived, making the age determinations that much more reliable. The blind spot in evolutionary thinking is the basic assumptions evolutionists make employing each method. Their strong bias for a very old universe causes them to make assumptions that will favor their bias.”

“Professor Richard Arculus assumes that 6.5 billion years ago supernovae created most of the uranium for our planet. He bases this on the belief that the earth is 4.5 billion years old and that the production ratio of U-235 and U-238 in a supernova is about 1.65. He says this is an oversimplification and concludes that about 10 supernovae from over 6 billion years ago to about 200 million years ago contributed to the uranium stores on earth to produce the unique ratio of U-235/U-238. It seems it is impossible to ever know what were the initial amounts of U-238 and Pb-206. The same is true for dating methods using other isotopes.”

In fact, if stars exploded and sent radioactive elements out into space, “this long period of interstellar residency would see the extinction of short and medium-lived isotopes, such as polonium since they would decay to lead long before reaching the earth.”

“The measured thorium and neodymium ratios of stars in our stellar neighborhood, if accepted at face value, strongly indicate that no significant amount of time has passed since the creation of these isotopes. Virtually all the initial thorium is still there, meaning not enough time has passed for significant decay of thorium. The spectroscopic evidence from 20 nearby stars presented by H. R. Butcher confirmed what Nobel physicist William Fowler advocated for many years: the universe was much younger than most astronomers accepted.”[xxv]

One researcher “explains that the U.S. Geological Survey used to have much younger uranium/lead ages accepted as correct. When older dates were obtained by a different way of measuring the ratio of lead and uranium, geologists decided the older dates were correct.” Scientists assumed that the rocks that appeared younger have lost some of the daughter isotope making them look younger. The fact that there are “too young” and “too old” results may indicate that the dating methods are not reliable.[xxvi]

The previous example goes against the typical naturalistic assumption that isotopes are locked within rocks, but are they? “Uranium, radium and lead salts are soluble in water. No one knows how much of each has been transported in or out of the rocks…Lead’s mobility increases with increased temperature and pressure…Gaseous argon can easily escape wherever microfractures exist in rock…In many cases the resulting dates are discordant due to loss of Lead or Uranium.”

Ultimately, there are many processes that give evidence that the Earth and the Universe are young, contrary to the “billions of years” models. The evidence is still interpreted based on many assumptions on both sides. Naturalists assume that the earth and universe have slowly, uniformly progressed over a long period of time. They think it has to have happened that way, and a motivating factor is that “the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”[xxvii] Creationists assume that the earth and universe were created not that long ago and large catastrophes (like the flood) played a large role on radiometric dating. Creationists base their assumptions on the historical records of the Bible.

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1:1

 

By Brian Mariani and others

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

Pictures to add:

[i] Tas Walker, Oxidizable carbon ratio dating, July 20, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/oxidizable-carbon-ratio-dating, accessed August 5, 2014.

[ii] Vance Ferrell, The Evolution Handbook, Evolution Facts, Inc, Altamont, TN, 2001, p. 186-187.

Theodore W. Rybka, Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives, 1982, Acts & Facts 11(4), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/200/, accessed August 8, 2014.

[iii] Andrew Snelling, The failure of U-Th-Pb ‘dating’ at Koongarra, Australia, April 1995, Journal of Creation 9(1):71-92, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-failure-of-u-th-pb-dating-at-koongarra-australia, accessed August 7, 2014.

Steven A. Austin, Grand Canyon Lava Flows: A Survey of Isotope Dating Methods, 1988, Acts & Facts 17(4), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/grand-canyon-lava-flows-survey-isotope-dating-meth/, accessed August 7, 2014.

[iv] Jonathan Sarfati, Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years, September 2006, Creation 28(4):26-27, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend, accessed August 5, 2014.

[v] Bryan Nickel, The Origin of Earth’s Radioactivity, Center for Scientific Creation, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Radioactivity2.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

  1. P. Hahn et al., “Survey on the Rate Perturbation of Nuclear Decay,” Radiochimica Acta, Vol. 23, 1976, pp. 23–37.

[vi] Radiocarbon Calibration, University of Oxford, July 22, 2014, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html, accessed July 31, 2014.

[vii] John Woodmorappe, Much-inflate carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees:a new mechanism, December 2001, Journal of Creation 15(3):43-44, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/much-inflated-carbon-14-dates-from-subfossil-trees-a-new-mechanism#f1, accessed August 5, 2014.

[viii] Paul Giem, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, 2001, Geoscience Research Institute, Origins 51:6-30, http://www.grisda.org/origins/51006.htm, accessed August 5, 2014.

[ix] Don Batten, Age of the earth: 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, June 4, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth, accessed August 5, 2014.

Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?, January 1, 2007, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf, accessed August 5, 2014.

Jonathan Sarfati, Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years, September 2006, Creation 28(4):26-27, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend, accessed August 5, 2014.

Russell Humphreys, Don DeYoung, Eugene Chaffin, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, and Steven Austin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, March 9, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioisotopes-and-the-age-of-the-earth/, accessed August 5, 2014.

[x] Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?, January 1, 2007, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xi] Robert Doolan, How do you date a New Zealand volcano?, December 1990, Creation 13(1):15, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/how-do-you-date-a-new-zealand-volcano, accessed August 7, 2014.

Steven A. Austin, Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano, 1996, Creation Science Foundation, Ltd. A.C.N. 010 120 304 Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal Vol. 10 (Part 3) – ISSN 1036 CEN Tech. J., Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_sa_r01/, accessed August 7, 2014.

[xii] Mike Riddle, The New Answers Book, Chapter 9: Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?, October 4, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xiii] Andrew Snelling, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, September 2, 2009, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xiv] Tas Walker, Radioactive dating methods: Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story, October 2010, Creation 32(4):30-31, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies, accessed August 5, 2014.

Andrew Snelling, Geological conflict: Young radiocarbon date for ancient fossil wood challenges fossil dating, March 2000, Creation 22(2):44-47, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/geological-conflict, accessed August 5, 2014.

Tas Walker, The dating game, December 2003, Creation 26(1):36-39, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-dating-game, accessed August 5, 2014.

Marvin L. Lubenow, The pigs took it all, June 1995, Creation 17(3):36-38, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-pigs-took-it-all, accessed August 5, 2014.

Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?, January 1, 2007, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf, accessed August 5, 2014.

Russell Humphreys, Don DeYoung, Eugene Chaffin, Andrew Snelling, John Baumgardner, and Steven Austin, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, March 9, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radioisotopes-and-the-age-of-the-earth/, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xv] Time and Time Again, August 14, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/time-and-time-again/, accessed August 5, 2014.

Sid Perkins, A Grand Old Canyon, November 29, 2012, Science AAAS, Latest News, http://news.sciencemag.org/2012/11/grand-old-canyon, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xvi] Jon Covey, The Unreliability of Radiometric Dating, Creation in the Crossfire, http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/Articles/Radiometric%20Dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

Whitcomb, J. C., DeYoung, D. B., The Moon: Its Creation, Form and Significance, BMH Books, Winona Lake, p. 100, (1978). The table data was taken from the following sources:

  • Proceedings of the Second Lunar Science Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 1117, 1494, 1496, 1499, 1516, 1539, 1593, 1620, 1631 (1971).
  • Apollo 12 Preliminary Science Report (NASA SP-235), pp. 205-208 (1970).
  • Science, 167, 3918, pp. 462-463, 471-473, 479-480, 555-558 (1970).
  • Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 14, 281 (1972)
  • Proceedings of the Third Lunar Science Conference, Vol. 2, 1550 (1972)
  • Proceedings of the Fourth Lunar Science Conference, Vol. 2, pp. 1200 and 1804 (1973).
  • Earth and Planetary Science Letters, pp. 17, 36 (1972).

[xvii] Tas Walker, Radioactive dating methods: Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story, October 2010, Creation 32(4):30-31, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radioactive-dating-anomalies, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xviii] Tas Walker, The dating game, December 2003, Creation 26(1):36-39, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-dating-game, accessed August 5, 2014.

Bowler, J.M. and Magee, J.W., Redating Australia’s oldest human remains: a sceptic’s view, Journal of Human Evolution 38:719–726, 2000.

Ralph W. Matthews, Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth, December 1982, Creation 5(1):41-44, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth, accessed August 6, 2014.

[xix] Andrew Snelling, Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions, September 2, 2009, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/radiometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xx] R. Humphreys, Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, 2005, 74.

Mike Riddle, The New Answers Book, Chapter 9: Does Radiometric Dating Prove the Earth Is Old?, October 4, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/does-radiometric-dating-prove-the-earth-is-old/, accessed August 5, 2014.

Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?, January 1, 2007, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xxi] Don Batten, David Catchpoole, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland, The Creation Answers Book: Chapter 4: What about carbon dating?, January 1, 2007, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/images/pdfs/cabook/chapter4.pdf, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xxii] Ralph W. Matthews, Radiometric dating and the age of the Earth, December 1982, Creation 5(1):41-44, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/radiometric-dating-age-of-earth, accessed August 6, 2014.

[xxiii] Ralph Matthews, Reflections on the emperor’s new clothes, September 1995, Creation 17(4):35-37, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/reflections-on-the-emperors-new-clothes, accessed August 6, 2014.

Theodore W. Rybka, Geophysical and Astronomical Clocks, American Writing and Publishing Co., Irvine (California), 1992.

[xxiv] Hamish Johnston, Radioactive decay accounts for half of Earth’s heat, July 19, 2011, Physics World, http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2011/jul/19/radioactive-decay-accounts-for-half-of-earths-heat, accessed August 8, 2014.

[xxv] Jon Covey, The Unreliability of Radiometric Dating, Creation in the Crossfire, http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/Articles/Radiometric%20Dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

Butcher, H. R., 1987, “Thorium in G-dwarf Stars as a Chronometer for the Galaxy,” Nature 328:127

[xxvi] Jon Covey, The Unreliability of Radiometric Dating, Creation in the Crossfire, http://www.creationinthecrossfire.org/Articles/Radiometric%20Dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

Faure, Gunter, Principles of Isotope Geology, 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons, New York, (1986), p. 282.

[xxvii] Sir Arthur Keith, 1959, quoted by Kent Hovind, Scientists’ Quotes About Evolution, September 7, 2010, Creation Today, http://creationtoday.org/scientists-quotes-about-evolution/, accessed August 20, 2014.

Radiometric Dating – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

 

Introduction:

Radioactive elements are primarily heavier elements on the periodic scale with unstable atoms, usually because they are so big, and consequently the nucleus breaks down and loses energy, forming smaller atoms and particles and resulting in a more stable element. This process is sometimes described as going from a parent isotope (beginning element) to a daughter isotope (ending element).

Radiometric Dating methods are absolute methods in determining how old testable items are. Based on radiometric dating… how old is the earth? Why is it important to know the age of the earth? How many assumptions are made in these techniques? How large is the error within tests? Is radiometric dating reliable?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Radiometric dating has proven, over and over again, that the earth is billions of years old. Scientists know through diligent research that there are different methods for open systems, closed systems, and different rock types,[i] and corrections are able to be done to determine an accurate result. “Some of the methods have internal checks, so that the data themselves provide good evidence of reliability or lack thereof.”[ii] Errors will be clearly recognized when the data is analyzed. “The ages of rock formations are rarely based on a single, isolated age measurement,” but “are verified whenever possible and practical, and are evaluated by considering other relevant data.”[iii]

Radiocarbon dating (Carbon-14 decays away over time) is one of the most common dating techniques. “Radiocarbon dating can easily establish that humans have been on the earth for over twenty thousand years, at least twice as long as creationists are willing to allow. Therefore it should come as no surprise that creationists…have been trying desperately to discredit this method for years. They have their work cut out for them, however, because radiocarbon (C-14) dating is one of the most reliable of all the radiometric dating methods.”[iv]

© Eugene Alvin Villar, 2008. This file is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. – picture credits from wikipedia.

From observations, there are usually many daughter isotopes and evidence (including radiohalos) of those having come from parent isotopes, which are less abundant (which is to be expected). More radioactive decay has taken place within the rocks than could have occurred in just a few thousand years. To suggest that the amount of radioactive decay we observe has occurred within 6,000 years, or even that the majority occurred due to a worldwide flood, is preposterous. It would have created a vast of heat all at once.

Creationists claim that there are many examples where radiometric dating has supposedly been shown to be unreliable. “This argument is specious and akin to concluding that all wristwatches do not work because you happen to find one that does not keep accurate time…Some of the “errors” are not errors at all but simply results obtained in the continuing effort to explore and improve the methods and their application.”[v] “Studies…are routinely done to ascertain which materials are suitable for dating and which are not, and to determine the cause of sometimes strange results.” For example, the 1801 lava flow in Hawaii was dated to be much older because of the foreign rocks that were included in the magma that were originally much older.[vi]

As another example, a living freshwater mussel was dated around two thousand years old due to the old carbon that is within the ocean.[vii] This is called “the reservoir effect,” which “is well known by scientists, who work hard to understand the limitations of their tools…Contrary to creationist propaganda, limitations of a tool do not invalidate the tool.”[viii] “Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database.”[ix]

Radiocarbon dates can also be skewed because the dated plants are within 200 meters of volcanic vents and are thus getting old Carbon, but “200 m away from the source, plants yielded an age in agreement with that expected.”[x] So for most wood, “there is no such problem because wood gets its carbon straight from the air, complete with a full dose of C-14.”[xi]

Creationists claim that C-14 has been found in coal, oil, and natural gas and so they can’t be millions of years old. “Radiocarbon dating doesn’t work well on objects much older than twenty thousand years,” because background contamination radiation will disrupt the results.[xii] Others suggest that C-14 dating is accurate to about 40,000 or 50,000 years.[xiii]

“C-14 is forming today faster than it’s decaying. However, it has fluctuated up and down over the past ten thousand years. This is determined by analyzing the radiocarbon dates of bristlecone pines that are themselves a way of dating based on the amount of rings, which is very consistent.”[xiv] Tree-ring dating coincides with and calibrates the C-14 dating results.[xv]

The magnetic field strength would affect the creation and decay rates of C-14, but even though it has fluctuated over Earth’s history, it has been more or less the same based on archaeological and geological data. This also correlates well with tree-ring dating.[xvi]

The rate of decay of elements is well documented and the decay rate is constant and unchanging. Radiometric dating can even work when elements move in or out of rocks. The Earth has been very stable and a lot is known about the composition of the Earth throughout its history, thus scientists are able to make very accurate descriptions and estimations of how the elements have reacted.

There is little reason to doubt the accuracy of radiometric dating techniques. Countless radiometric studies of rocks and other objects from all over the world confirm ages of tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands, millions, and billions of years old. Studies prove beyond a doubt that billions of years have ticked by.

“Dr. Dalrymple, an expert in radiometric dating with lots of hands-on experience, puts the percentage of bad dates at only 5-10 percent…When you consider that each radiometric method is subject to different types of error, that the different “clocks” run at different speeds, such an agreement would be extremely rare on the basis of pure chance. In a number of instances, more than you might imagine, dates are further corroborated by methods that have nothing to do with radioactivity. Thus, the big, statistical picture painted by radiometric dating is excellent. Today, we have some 100,000 radiometric dates, the vast majority contributing sensibly to the overall picture.”[xvii]

“For decades, young-Earth creationists (YECs) have vainly searched the geology and geochemistry literature to find ways of discrediting radiometric dating and protecting their antiquated biblical interpretations. YEC John Woodmorappe (a pseudonym), for example, has been at the forefront in misquoting and misrepresenting radiometric dating results from the geology and geochemistry literature.”[xviii] “The only way creationists can hang on to their chronology is to poke all the holes they can into radiocarbon dating. However, as we have seen, it has survived their most ardent attacks.”[xix]

 

by Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

[i] G. Brent Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth, A Response to “Scientific” Creationism: Radiometric Dating, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

[ii] G. Brent Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth, A Response to “Scientific” Creationism: Radiometric Dating, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

[iii] G. Brent Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth, A Response to “Scientific” Creationism: Radiometric Dating, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

[iv] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[v] G. Brent Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth, A Response to “Scientific” Creationism: Radiometric Dating, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

[vi] G. Brent Dalrymple, How Old is the Earth, A Response to “Scientific” Creationism: Radiometric Dating, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dalrymple/radiometric_dating.html, accessed August 8, 2014.

[vii] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[viii] Claim CD011.4, last modified July 8, 2004, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html, accessed August 7, 2014.

Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[ix] Thomas Higham, Natural Corrections: Reservoir effects, web-info radiocarbon, http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html, accessed August 7, 2014.

[x] Thomas Higham, Natural Corrections: Reservoir effects, web-info radiocarbon, http://www.c14dating.com/corr.html, accessed August 7, 2014.

[xi] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xii] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xiii] Bernie Hobbs, A date with carbon, December 9, 2010, ABC Science, http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2010/12/09/3088319.htm, accessed August 5, 2014.

John Woodmorappe, Much-inflate carbon-14 dates from subfossil trees:a new mechanism, December 2001, Journal of Creation 15(3):43-44, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/much-inflated-carbon-14-dates-from-subfossil-trees-a-new-mechanism#f1, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xiv] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xv] Radiocarbon Calibration, University of Oxford, July 22, 2014, http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html, accessed July 31, 2014.

[xvi] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

[xvii] Dave E. Matson, How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments? A1. Woodmorappe’s Collection of Bad Dates, 1994-2002, The TalkOrigins Archive, http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-add.html, accessed August 5, 2014.

[xviii] Kevin R. Henke, “RATE” Leaders Abandon Geologic Fantasies and Admit that Extensive Radioactive Decay has Occurred, Old Earth Ministries, http://www.oldearth.org/rate_admit.htm, accessed August 8, 2014.

[xix] Christopher Gregory Weber, Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating, Spring 1982, Vol 3, Num 2, Pages 23-29, http://ncse.com/cej/3/2/answers-to-creationist-attacks-carbon-14-dating, accessed July 17, 2014.

Oldest Records and Objects – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Based on the history recorded in the Bible, we would expect that the oldest objects and records should be only up to about 6,000 years old or even less due to the destructive global flood around 4,400 years ago. There would be no problem if human remains or objects were found in the fossil record.[i] Naturalists have no problem assigning an age older than 6,000 years to an object because they expect or assume that humans have slowly developed civilizations over the past 200,000 years.

In the middle to late 1800s, researchers assumed that the stone, bronze, and iron tools demonstrated the development of mankind. However, in some cases “the iron, bronze and stone tools are all mixed together”[ii] at the same dig sites. In fact, “modern archaeologists now ack­now­ledge that the Stone–Bronze–Iron Age system is not very helpful outside Europe.” In fact, “the archaeological evidence suggested that rather than developing slowly and painfully, as is normal with human societies, the civilization of Ancient Egypt, like that of the Olmecs, emerged all at once and fully formed.”[iii]

“While there has been a sequence to technological innovation, all the basics were well advanced long before Noah’s Flood in the days of Tubal–cain, who ‘forged all kinds of tools out of bronze and iron’ (Genesis 4:22).”[iv] In fact, there are people groups today that live like Stone Age hunter-gatherers that have actually “devolved” from more advanced civilizations due to location or cultural changes.[v]

Modern anthropologists may “tend to ignore the local cultural memories as of no consequence, effectively imposing a western evolutionary stamp onto their past.”[vi] Assumptions among archaeologists are quite evident when you look at the different ways that archaeologists interpret Egyptian chronology[vii] or the Ice Age.[viii] “If you believe the Ice Age lasted 2.6 million years, then you must assume human beings were making the same basic tools for at least 50,000 generations before any new ideas were invented. That scenario does not quite fit what we know about human ingenuity.”[ix]

“Imagine if you and your extended family were suddenly forced to migrate rapidly into an unpopulated wilderness. Even though you come from a society with great technology, it is likely that your family group would not carry all of the necessary knowledge with you to, for example, be able to find ore-bodies, and smelt and work metals. So you might choose to use stone tools to survive.”[x] Caves were ready made homes that offered great protection and cool temperatures in the summer, and warmer temperatures in the winter.

Chauvet-Pont-d’arc cave painting

“The typical ‘cave-man’ is portrayed as a hairy, dim-witted, brutish creature. However, many cave paintings reveal a skill equivalent to that of some of the greatest artists of modern times…“‘Stone-age’ musical instruments” reveal “a high level of understanding and musical ability.” [xi] We expect to find stone tools, cave art, and metal tools at nearly the same time as well. It’s quite possible that the poorest of people could not afford metal tools and simply made do with stone tools.

Göbekli Tepe, with its location and intricate carvings of animals, may be “one of the earliest big human monuments we have—a tentative dating would put it soon after the Flood.” “To put things in perspective [about Göbekli Tepe] —archaeologists are claiming that, 12,000 years ago, people were capable of carving these huge monuments. This is supposed to be long before any sort of written language, thousands of years before the Egyptian pyramids, and prior to the settlement of Sumer. Out of nowhere, we have this ancient monument, and then humans supposedly put down their chisels and don’t build anything for thousands of years more—but when they do, we get Sumer and the Egyptian pyramids. This stretches credulity.”[xii]

“Only 5% of Göbekli Tepe has been uncovered—who knows what will be discovered as the other circles are excavated. At this point, archaeologists are making tons of assumptions that they can’t possibly know. They have a little bit of data, to which they add a lot of assumptions to give the narrative gloss so that the History Channel can make a compelling piece on it.”[xiii]

“Reports about human origins tend to catch the attention of the world’s media, especially when they claim older and older dates.”[xiv] This may be a factor for scientists to stretch the truth to make their research seem more significant (older) than it is so that they can gain more funding. Cultural pride may even be an issue in making correct assessments of the bits and pieces of evidence that is found in archaeological investigations.

From a naturalistic standpoint, the oldest objects are the Oldowan tools.[xv] But, both dating methods used (argon/argon dating and paleomagnetic dating) are based on assumptions and thus are questionable. In dating the supposed 400,000 year old Schöningen spears, “their method of dating [was] biostratigraphy.”[xvi] This method dates an object based on the organisms found alongside it. Ultimately, it is circular reasoning and based on a lot of assumptions.[xvii]

Naturalists date objects based on the layers of the sediment, astronomical alignments, radiometric dating, and similarities with other sites or objects such as pottery styles, coins, etc. These methods are based on a lot of assumptions and are greatly debated based on some inconsistent results. Archaeology is like a big puzzle, it is not as objective and straight-forward as one would hope, so realistically, there is a lot of guesswork and that guesswork is influenced by the opinions of the researcher. It has been said “put three archaeologists in a room and you get five opinions.”[xviii]

“Researchers recognize that published dates are based on many unprovable assumptions so they have no hesitation dismissing dates they do not agree with.”[xix] “The published dates give the impression of being precise and absolute but in reality they are subjective and flexible.” Mungo Man, the Aborigine from New South Wales, Australia was dated at 24,000 years old in the 1960s. “Twenty years later, a different dating method gave an age of 42,000 years, so the carbon-14 dates were abandoned and the duration of Aboriginal occupation revised upward. Then in 1999 researchers, using five different methods, obtained a date of 62,000 years. This date has become popular with tourist guides in Australia, but many geologists won’t accept the new date because it contradicts the big-picture view of human evolution world-wide.”[xx]

“A popular theory, proposed by liberal “scholars,” said that the Hebrews “borrowed” from the Babylonians, but no conclusive proof has ever been offered. The differences, including religious, ethical, and sheer quantity of details, make it unlikely that the Biblical account was dependent on any extant source from the Sumerian traditions. The divine inspiration of the Bible would demand that the Genesis account is the correct version…The Book of Genesis is viewed for the most part as an historical work, even by many liberal scholars, while the Epic of Gilgamesh is viewed as mythological.”[xxi] God’s word is the priority and the total authority and it makes sense that it would influence other writings.

The observed evidences of modern archaeology can and do make a lot of sense with respect to the Bible and there have been numerous possible discoveries (Sodom and Gomorrah, Jericho, King David, and many more) that have continued to confirm the truth of the Bible.[xxii] Evidence from modern archaeology better correlates with the Biblical record as opposed to the evolutionary timeline.

 

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1, 2, 3, 6, 7

 

by Kylie Steele and Brian Mariani

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

[i] Brian Thomas, Possible Human Artifact Found in Coal, February 20, 2013, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/possible-human-artifact-found-coal/, accessed July 30, 2014.

John D. Morris, An Amazing Anomalous Fossil, 2010, Acts & Facts 39(2):16, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/amazing-anomalous-fossil/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Andrew Snelling, Where Are All the Human Fossils?, December 1, 1991, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/fossils/fossil-record/where-are-all-the-human-fossils/, accessed July 30, 2014.

[ii] Robert Niemand, “The Stone ‘Age’ – a figment of the imagination?, September 2005, Creation 27(4):13, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-stone-age-a-figment-of-the-imagination, accessed July 28, 2014.

[iii] Graham Hancock, Fingerprints of the Gods, pp. 135–136, New York Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995.

[iv] Robert Niemand, “The Stone ‘Age’ – a figment of the imagination?, September 2005, Creation 27(4):13, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-stone-age-a-figment-of-the-imagination, accessed July 28, 2014.

[v] Carl Wieland, A challenge to traditional cultural anthropology, December 1997, Journal of Creation 11(3):258-259, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/moriori-hunter-gatherers, accessed July 30, 2014.

David Catchpoole, The people that forgot time (and much else, too), June 2008, Creation 30(3):34-37, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-people-that-forgot-time-and-much-else-too, accessed July 30, 2014.

Carl Wieland, Tasmanian aborigines – another example of cultural ‘devolution,’ January 1979, Creation 2(1):18-19, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/tasmanian-aborigines-another-example-of-cultural-devolution, accessed July 30, 2014.

Joseph Mizzi and Michael Matthews, The amazing cave people of Malta: Evolutionist indoctrination has led many to link the idea of ‘cave dwelling’ with the notion of ‘primitive subhumans’. But this does not logically follow, as recent evidence confirms, December 2003, Creation 26(1):40-43, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-amazing-cave-people-of-malta, accessed July 30, 2014.

[vi] Tas Walker, Dating of “oldest pottery” from China is based on assumptions: The evidence is consistent with biblical history, June 11, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dating-oldest-pottery-from-china, accessed July 28, 2014.

[vii] Elizabeth Mitchell, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 24: Doesn’t Egyptian Chronology Prove That the Bible Is Unreliable?, July 22, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/doesnt-egyptian-chronology-prove-bible-unreliable/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Elizabeth Mitchell, Radiocarbon Dating Shortens the Timeline for Ancient Egypt, September 19, 2013, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/radiocarbon-dating-shortens-the-timeline-for-ancient-egypt/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Matt McClellan, Ancient Egyptian Chronology and the Book of Genesis, August 24, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/ancient-egypt/ancient-egyptian-chronology-and-the-book-of-genesis/, accessed July 30, 2014.

David Down and John Ashton, Unwrapping the Pharaohs, (Green Forest, Ar: Master Books, 2006).

[viii] Andrew Snelling and Mike Matthews, When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?, February 26, 2013, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/when-was-the-ice-age-in-biblical-history/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Michael Oard, The New Answers Book, Chapter 16: Where Does the Ice Age Fit?, November 22, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/where-does-the-ice-age-fit/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Jake Herbert, Was There an Ice Age?, 2013, Acts & Facts 42(12), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/was-there-ice-age/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Ice Age, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/, accessed July 30, 2014.

[ix] Andrew Snelling and Mike Matthews, When Was the Ice Age in Biblical History?, February 26, 2013, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/environmental-science/ice-age/when-was-the-ice-age-in-biblical-history/, accessed July 30, 2014.

[x] Steve Cardino, The mystery of ancient man, March 1998, Creation 20(2):10-14, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-mystery-of-ancient-man, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xi] Steve Cardino, The mystery of ancient man, March 1998, Creation 20(2):10-14, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-mystery-of-ancient-man, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xii] Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, How does Göbekli Tepe fit with biblical history?, July 26, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/gobekli-tepe, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xiii] Lita Cosner and Robert Carter, How does Göbekli Tepe fit with biblical history?, July 26, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/gobekli-tepe, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xiv] Tas Walker, Dating of “oldest pottery” from China is based on assumptions: The evidence is consistent with biblical history, June 11, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dating-oldest-pottery-from-china, accessed July 28, 2014.

[xv] Angela M.H. Schuster, World’s Oldest Stone Tools, March/April 1997, Archaeology newsbriefs, Vol 50, No 2, http://archive.archaeology.org/9703/newsbriefs/tools.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xvi] Robert H. Gargett, Shedding New Light on the Schöningen Spears, October 8, 2012, The Subversive Archaeologist, http://www.thesubversivearchaeologist.com/2012/10/shedding-new-light-on-schoningen-spears.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xvii] Brian Thomas, Cyclostratigraphy: Another Round of Circular Reasoning?, June 20, 2014, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/8195/, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xviii] Glenn Hodges, “Cahokia: America’s Lost City,” National Geographic, January 2011, 139.

[xix] Tas Walker, Dating of “oldest pottery” from China is based on assumptions: The evidence is consistent with biblical history, June 11, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dating-oldest-pottery-from-china, accessed July 28, 2014.

[xx] Tas Walker, Dating of “oldest pottery” from China is based on assumptions: The evidence is consistent with biblical history, June 11, 2009, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dating-oldest-pottery-from-china, accessed July 28, 2014.

[xxi] Frank Lorey, The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh, 1997, Acts & Facts 26(3), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/noah-flood-gilgamesh/, accessed July 30, 2014.

[xxii] Noah Wiener, Top 20 Biblical Archaeology Events and Discoveries of 2012, January 11, 2013, Bible History Daily, Biblical Arachaeology Society, http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/news/top-20-biblical-archaeology-events-and-discoveries-of-2012/, accessed July 30, 2014.

  1. Archaeological Finds: Seven Compelling Evidences, March 20, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/archaeology/6-archaeological-finds/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, 2001, The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/books/first/f/finkelstein-bible.html, accessed July 30, 2014.

Oldest Records and Objects – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

They are a variety of old objects and records and more artifacts are constantly being discovered. Are these objects and records actually as old as they say they are?  How can you tell how old an object is? What is the oldest object ever found? 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

“Genetic and fossil evidence indicate anatomically modern humans emerged in Africa around 120,000 years ago.”[i] Humans first developed simple things initially made out of rock before other materials were discovered or created. This Stone Age lasted until around 3000 BC where humans began using bronze tools (the Bronze Age) and that led to the development of iron tools in 1000 BC (the Iron Age).[ii] The first pottery was created around 21,000 years ago or some suggest even 26,000 years ago.[iii] Humans have been controlling fire for 800,000, but only started farming 12,000 years ago.[iv]

This photo is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license.

Two unique and megalithic sites are Stonehenge, which is dated to about 5,000 years ago[v] and Göbekli Tepe, in Turkey, which is dated to about 11,000 years old. Göbekli Tepe, “the world’s oldest temple” is a bunch of stone pillars set up in rings “crafted and arranged by prehistoric people who had not yet developed metal tools or even pottery.”[vi]

An 8 inch bone flute dating to 35,000 years old is the oldest musical instrument ever found so far. The earliest cave art is from the Chauvet caves in France that have been radiocarbon dated to 30,000-32,000 years old.[vii] “The oldest sculpture of a human being” is the Venus of Hohle Fels, which is a 40,000 year old carved piece of Mammoth ivory.[viii] The sophistication and creativity of music and art, in part, gave Homo sapiens the edge over Neanderthals.[ix]

Archaeologists found 70,000 year old beads in South Africa. “Beads are considered definitive evidence of symbolic thinking…[and] are tangible evidence of a concept of self…you’re not going to decorate yourself if you have no concept of self.”[x]

The Schöningen spears from Germany “are the oldest complete hunting weapons ever found…[at] 380,000 to 400,000 years old.”[xi] The oldest known tools are Oldowan stone tools originally found at the Olduvai Gorge in Tanzania.[xii] These tools are around 2.6 million years old and were actually created and used by Homo habilis. Tools may still have been used before this time, but these are the oldest found so far.

The age of these objects can be determined by the type of pottery or other objects that are there and by how many layers of sediment cover the object. Scientists often use Carbon-14 dating methods to date any organic material or remnants. The amount of ancient artifacts and the corresponding dates scientifically determined, completely refute the idea that the Earth is only 6,000 years old. There are many slow naturalistic processes like rock layer formation, tree rings growth, ice layers formation, mountain building, evolution and more that all coincide and demonstrate much more time than just 6,000 years.

There are also numerous historical records and ancient cultures that predate and have influenced the Bible.[xiii] Based on this and other archaeological evidences, it would be foolish to blindly believe the young earth perspective of human history.

 

by Kylie Steele and Brian Mariani

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

[i] Hillary Mayell, Oldest Jewelry? “Beads” Discovered in African Cave, April 15, 2004, National Geographic News, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0415_040415_oldestjewelry.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[ii] The Stone, Bronze, and Iron Ages, 2014, Essential Humanities, http://www.essential-humanities.net/history-overview/stone-bronze-iron-ages/, accessed July 25, 2014.

[iii] Andrew Lawler, World’s Oldest Pottery?, June 2, 2009, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Science Latest News, http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2009/06/worlds-oldest-pottery, accessed July 25, 2014.

Adam Benton, The oldest pottery discovered, July 5, 2012, EvoAnth, http://evoanth.wordpress.com/2012/07/05/the-oldest-pottery-discovered/, accessed July 25, 2014.

Andrea Silnes, History of Ceramics, May 19, 2014, The American Ceramics Society, http://ceramics.org/learn-about-ceramics/history-of-ceramics, accessed July 25, 2014.

[iv] Human Evolution Timeline Interactive, Smithsonian: National Museum of Natural History, What does it mean to be human?, last updated July 17, 2014, http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-evolution-timeline-interactive, accessed July 25, 2014.

[v] Dan Jones, New Light on Stonehenge, October 2008, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/new-light-on-stonehenge-11706891/, accessed July 25, 2014.

[vi] Andrew Curry, Göbekli Tepe: The World’s First Temple?, November 2008, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/gobekli-tepe-the-worlds-first-temple-83613665/, accessed July 25, 2014.

[vii] Michael Marshall, Bear DNA is clue to age of Chaevet cave art, April 19, 2011, New Scientist, Magazine issue 2809, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028093.900-bear-dna-is-clue-to-age-of-chauvet-cave-art.html#.U9KueHl0zZ4, accessed July 25, 2014.

Don Hitchcock, Chauvet Cave, last update November 13, 2013, Don’s Maps, http://www.donsmaps.com/chauvetcave.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[viii] Andrew Curry, The Cave Art Debate, March 2012, Smithsonian Magazine, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-cave-art-debate-100617099/, accessed July 25, 2014.

[ix] Pallab Ghosh, ‘Oldest musical instrument’ found, June 25, 2009, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8117915.stm, accessed July 25, 2014.

[x] Hillary Mayell, Oldest Jewelry? “Beads” Discovered in African Cave, April 15, 2004, National Geographic News, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0415_040415_oldestjewelry.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xi] Arlette P. Kouwenhoven, World’s Oldest Spears, May/June 1997, Archaeology newsbriefs, Vol 50, No 3, http://archive.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xii] Oldowan & Acheulean Stone Tools, last update July 25, 2014, Museum of Anthropology at the University of Missouri, http://anthromuseum.missouri.edu/minigalleries/handaxes/intro.shtml, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xiii] Melloson Allen, 10 Ways The Bible Was Influenced By Other Religions, June 30, 2013, ListVerse, http://listverse.com/2013/06/30/ten-influences-on-the-bible/, accessed July 30, 2014.

Jim Walker, The Dark Bible: A Short History of the Bible, 2006, http://www.nobeliefs.com/DarkBible/darkbible2.htm, accessed July 30, 2014.

Creative Ideas for Children’s Ministry

 

We had a very full schedule on our recent speaking trip to the northwest, with lots of opportunities to share the truth about Creation and God’s Word with children, teens, and adults. In all, we did 44 presentations at 22 locations in 2 weeks… Wow! These included churches, creation groups, a university, Christian schools, homeschool groups, and public school kids. It’s been a bit of a whirlwind, but we are privileged to come alongside so many others who are reaching out to touch people of all ages with truth.

dreamstime_xs_23710744I have been especially encouraged by the way some very dedicated churches and individuals are reaching out to children and youth through release time and after school programs. In one community, a dozen churches have joined together to support a Christian Education Release Time class. They raised money to build a facility adjacent to the public high school in which they minister to students informally by providing lunches, snacks, and a place to hang out with friends. They also have a daily Bible class that students can attend as “release time” from public school. This program takes a lot of dedicated time and money, but is reaping fruit in relationships and opportunities for young people to hear the gospel and be encouraged in their faith.

In another community, we were privileged to minister to public school students in a creative afterschool program. The school has an “early release” every Wednesday which creates both a challenge for working parents and a wonderful ministry opportunity for a nearby church. The church provides transportation from the school, snacks, a variety of classes, and homework help for grades K-5 students from 1-5 PM every Wednesday. Each week they have a 30 minute Bible class, followed by times for arts and crafts, gym activities, cooking, and other electives – all staffed by dedicated volunteers who give of their time to help parents and enrich the lives of kids. What a wonderful opportunity for the church to serve and impact the community in a positive way.

Other programs we have seen, or heard about, on this trip include; a weekly Bible Club in a public elementary school (also part of a release time program), afterschool Good News Clubs, a creative homeschool program that offers lots of electives, science enrichment classes offered by a creation club, and weekly evangelistic outreaches at a university. Some of these even include science activities that encourage creative thinking and offer a Biblical alternative to the strong evolutionary teaching kids get elsewhere. We are much encouraged by the adults who faithfully serve in these programs which minister to students.

Wouldn’t it be great if every community had programs like this to reach out and minister to real needs of families while offering creative teaching and activities to enrich the lives of children? What about your community? What might YOU do? How might YOU and your church become a catalyst for meeting needs and reaching families with the truth of God’s Word? It’s a big job, but with willing workers and God’s empowerment, YOU can make a difference.

 

by Mary Jo Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

Beauty and Art – Creation Perspective

Creation Answer:

Beauty and art are not just the result of evolution for mating purposes.[i] “Essentially, the foundational argument would suggest that, given the universal reality that the concept of “beauty” exists (even if it is in “the eye of the beholder”) there is an ultimate “standard” by which beauty is judged. Determining the aesthetic value of anything requires rational judgment, even though that judgment is unique to each individual.  Each rational judgment must rely on one’s ability to discriminate at a sensory or emotional level.”[ii]

“This examination makes a judgment regarding whether something is beautiful, sublime, disgusting, fun, cute, silly, entertaining, pretentious, discordant, harmonious, boring, humorous, or tragic. And, of course, since such an ability exists only in the mental acuity of imaginative appreciation, then the Source of such ability must also be both rational and emotional.”[iii]

God created man beautiful in His own image. The beauty in nature (including humans) is to reflect the glory and majesty of God and what He created, and also to show the unique design and creativity of our Designer. Like every other created thing, beauty and art were created as reminders for us to glorify God. All glory is owed to Him. Beauty and a creative, artistic ability are characteristics of humanity. Humans were created intricately and very uniquely to reflect God’s ability and talents, that through what He created, people could acknowledge that He is God.

God has given an almost limitless supply of resources and creativity for humans to develop further forms of art. God is Himself a magnificent artist. He designed the stars in the sky. He designed an amazing variety of animal and plant life. He paints beautiful sunsets that cause our jaws to drop in awe. God’s intricate artistic design is evidenced even down to the smallest functions of our cells. Our God is an awesome God. The sense of awe that a human feels inspires belief and is itself an evidence of God.[iv] “He has made everything beautiful in its time. He has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end” (Eccl 3:11, NIV). “The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands,” (Ps 19:1), “because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” (Rom 1:19-20 NASB)

Math is deeply rooted within art. Without math, people and scientists would not be able to know and figure out the artistic nature and beauty of our bodies.[v] This connection between math and art did not just develop naturally, but it was designed by God. God set the standard when He first created everything with its perfect dimension and size, and from that, man was able to understand these created entities: math, art and beauty.[vi]

God designed mankind to see the opposite gender as beautiful. He created man not to be alone, and designed us to interact, to enjoy each other, and to be intimate in the right context (marriage). He did this because He loves us and wants us to be blessed by the intimate love of one’s spouse. Therefore, the beauty of one’s spouse is a special thing that God gave us and the marriage relationship is analogous to God’s beauty as well as Christ’s relationship to us.

Evolutionists make assumptions as to why waterfalls or sunsets are beautiful. They simply show that we are higher evolved and so more intelligent, but they can’t completely explain intelligence and consciousness from their worldview. They can’t explain what makes us different from “other animals.” In fact, humanity’s hunger for beauty “is a wonder in itself! The flower is not impressed with its own majesty; it merely exists with no conscious awareness. The chimpanzee does not gaze longingly on the enigma of the Mona Lisa, nor do the stars muse on the heavens they themselves grace.”[vii]

Regarding the sophisticated nest of the bowerbird, “rather than an intellectual intention towards art, the great bowerbird instinctively builds remarkable structures, and the female instinctively responds to the optical effect, as programmed by the Creator. Only man, created in the image of God, has a true aesthetic sense. When appreciating the beauty and design of creatures like the bowerbird, the wise aesthetic judge praises the Creator of both art and beauty.”[viii]

peacock beauty

Photo Credit: Melissa Rohrer

“According to evolution, a complex pattern like the eye pattern in the peacock’s feather has evolved by the accumulation of hundreds of genetic mistakes occurring over vast periods of time. However, patterns like the blue ellipsoid in the eye are irreducible, i.e. they require several features to be simultaneously present in order for there to be a clear pattern. If only one barb in a peacock tail feather was to have a patch of blue color this would not produce a beautiful pattern. Such a random change would arguably cause the peahen to deselect, not select the pattern. Since evolution requires every step change to have a selective advantage, the eye pattern cannot evolve but must be designed complete from the beginning.”[ix] “Most evolutionists accept that creatures like the peacock have added beauty” or more beauty than is needed to survive. “Added beauty” has no evolutionary explanation except that it just happened for no reason, but rather it is “a hallmark of an intelligent designer, beauty in nature must be seen as an important evidence of design.”[x]

Naturalists have created the theory of sexual selection because, within nature, there are organisms like peacocks and birds of paradise that use aesthetic selection techniques to get a mate. There are many difficulties with the theory and so some scientists have developed “alternative theories for the origin of beauty. The existence of these alternative theories suggests that the theory of sexual selection is not sound…There is no satisfactory explanation of how the sexual selection cycle can start or why the peahen should prefer beautiful features.”[xi] The aesthetic features of these organisms are all beautiful to humans as well. “According to evolution, preference genes” (genes that cause the female to be attracted to a particular feature) “appear by totally random processes and therefore there could be a fashion for all kinds of features including ugly features.”[xii] Why aren’t there more preferred features that we would call ugly?

Notice, there are things that all humanity calls ugly or beautiful and this means that “there must exist a standard of perfect beauty.”[xiii] Naturalistic “researchers have not yet found a metaprogram in this universe that guides clouds of space dust into raw functional, let alone variously aesthetic, forms. After all, what does the impersonal universe care about beauty? A Creator God who appreciates beauty and wants others to appreciate His handiwork must be responsible for the origin of aesthetic features.”[xiv]

There is no good naturalistic reason why humans should trust our logic and emotions if they are simply evolved chemical reactions. Inspiration, passion, and desire have been created and given by God to us. God designed beauty, art, math, logic, consciousness, emotions, etc. and He designed us to appreciate them. Everything God has made is a beautiful, artistic design in accordance to His will. Even in a cursed and fallen world, God has created beauty that looks ahead to things to come. Therefore, we should explore deeper into what God has created and glorify Him through every aspect of our lives.

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 1:31; Job 12:7-9; Ps 8:3, 19:1, 50:6, 36:5, 65:6-7, 90:2,  104: 30-31; Gen 1:26-27; Gen 1:28; Gen 9:7; 2 Cor 4:6; Ps 145:5; Ps 145:12; Ps 8:1; Eccl 3:11; Is 6:3; Ex 31:3; Ex 31:5; Ex 35:31; Rom 1:18-20

 

 

Written By Brian Mariani and others

 

 

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

 

[i] Kathryn Bell, God, the Bible, and Art: Part 1, BJU Press, http://www.bjupress.com/resources/articles/t2t/god-bible-and-art-part-1.php, accessed August 23, 2014.

[ii] God Caused Beauty, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/aesthetics/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[iii] God Caused Beauty, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/aesthetics/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[iv] Fazale Rana, What Inspires Your Belief in God?, February 13, 2014, Reasons to Believe, http://www.reasons.org/articles/what-inspires-your-belief-in-god, accessed August 23, 2014.

[v] Ruth Bancewicz, Beauty, Science & Theology, Part 3: Beauty & the Character of God, Science and Belief, http://scienceandbelief.org/2012/08/09/beauty-science-theology-part-3-beauty-the-character-of-god/, accessed August 23, 2014.

[vi] The Theory of Evolution vs. Creation Science, Creation & Evolution, http://www.pilgrimtours.com/creation/mathematics.htm, accessed August 23, 2014.

[vii] God Caused Beauty, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/aesthetics/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[viii] Bowerbird’s Artistic Sense, September 18, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/birds/bowerbirds-artistic-sense/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[ix] Stuart Burgess, The Beauty of the Peacock Tail and the Problems with the Theory of Sexual Selection, August 1, 2001, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peacock-tail-beauty-and-problems-theory-of-sexual-selection/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[x] Stuart Burgess, The Beauty of the Peacock Tail and the Problems with the Theory of Sexual Selection, August 1, 2001, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peacock-tail-beauty-and-problems-theory-of-sexual-selection/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[xi] Stuart Burgess, The Beauty of the Peacock Tail and the Problems with the Theory of Sexual Selection, August 1, 2001, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peacock-tail-beauty-and-problems-theory-of-sexual-selection/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[xii] Stuart Burgess, The Beauty of the Peacock Tail and the Problems with the Theory of Sexual Selection, August 1, 2001, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/natural-selection/peacock-tail-beauty-and-problems-theory-of-sexual-selection/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[xiii] God Caused Beauty, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/aesthetics/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[xiv] Brian Thomas, The Apobetics of Aesthetics: A Hairy Problem for Evolution, 2009, Acts & Facts 38(4):18, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/apobetics-aesthetics-hairy-problem-for-evolution/, accessed August 22, 2014.

Beauty and Art – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Introduction:

“Aesthetics is the study of beauty, more often associated today with art.”[i] Some believe that beauty and art have developed as we have evolved, mainly for mating purposes and driven by selfish desires. Others believe that beauty and art were designed by a beautiful, loving, creative God to show His nature and glory to us and through us. What is beauty? Why do we have beauty? Is beauty for more than just mating purposes? What is art? Why is art so mathematical? Why do beautiful things like a sunset move us? 

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Photo Credit: Aimee Mariani

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Beauty is displayed through people of both genders, as well as through the natural world. Beauty is an evolutionary advantage, present in people who are possibly at a higher evolved state. Based on natural selection, they will be chosen first, mate sooner and potentially survive better. This is the theory of sexual selection.[ii] Some think that only certain people have “natural beauty” stored in them and that beauty will show in their physical appearance or even in their skills or talents.[iii] “Natural beauty” may instead be universal, within every human being to one degree or another and it may be passed down by Natural Selection.[iv]

“There are indeed atheists who find no meaning, beauty, and morality in the universe. There are also atheists who find objective, intrinsic morality, beauty, and meaning in the universe, though not on the same basis as religious theists like Christians. There are also atheists — as well as more than a few religious theists, including Christians — who argue that meaning and beauty are subjective things we must personally commit to. As abstract concepts, they are created in our minds from our experiences with individual objects or events and thus have no truly independent, objective existence apart from the way we bring those elements together to create those concepts.”[v] “The experience of love and beauty…is a passive function of the mind.”[vi]

“This would mean that things like beauty and love are created from how we approach our world or how we treat other people. If that’s true, then it also means that we are personally responsible for the existence of things like beauty and love — they aren’t created by any gods and they are permanent fixtures of the universe which will persist regardless of what we do. They are, instead, something we must take responsibility for and nurture through our attitudes, behavior, and beliefs.”[vii]

“That would arguably mean that atheists are in a better position to appreciate things like love and beauty. In recognizing their responsibility for their existence, atheists can’t take such concepts for granted. If the universe is undesigned and undirected, we can only speak meaningfully about beauty, love, intelligence, etc., if we really mean it and if we really care about it because we can’t shift responsibility for them to some supernatural being.”[viii] How much greater is the joy which comes from creating beauty.”[ix]

The concept of beauty does not necessitate a God. Beauty is merely the understanding, recognition and appreciation of natural patterns. Due to highly developed eyes, minds and mating processes, humans have a better appreciation of beauty than lower evolved animals. Beauty appears to be more appreciated when organisms are more effectively able to communicate it, and thus humans have the best appreciation for beauty. Other animals or organisms cannot comprehend beauty as well.[x]  Beauty in nature happens by random chance and humans have evolved to appreciate it the most of all animals. Our fascination with the beauty in nature may be a leftover understanding or awareness of where we have evolved from and how to better survive..

Humans have evolved to be able to see beauty in other forms as well. Because of that evolved ability, humans have created many different kinds of art. Art is a creative work on paper, canvas or other mediums within the natural world. Art can be expressed through dance, music or other avenues. It is designed by a creative mind or even by some natural processes in nature. The earliest evidence of music dates back to 35,000 years ago, and the first art in the Chauvet caves in France to around 30,000-32,000 years ago. These forms of art show historic humanity’s higher creative spirit, which gave “them an edge over the Neanderthals.”[xi] There doesn’t need to be a God to give us art or beauty or that inspiration. They come about naturally.

Beauty is recognized when an experience causes sparks in the brain and automatically causes a desire to see or create more beauty. To some degree or another, humans have a natural desire to make beautiful art.[xii] The more creative and talented artists may also have evolutionary advantages, since art is another method to impress a potential mate. So the better one is at creating art and beauty, the better their chances to mate and survive. The bowerbird is a great example in that the male specifically builds a nest and integrates visually appealing aspects into it in an effort to impress the female.[xiii] As time has progressed, humans have evolved and gained more and more intelligence, so art styles have evolved and become more sophisticated over time.

In fact, the evolved ability of recognizing beauty may have allowed humans greater survival. For example, when humans see a beautiful blue sky, they are more attracted to that than moving towards a dangerous thunderstorm. Awareness of beauty may also lead to a general increase in observation, causing humans who would stand near a tremendous waterfall and look with a sense of awe and even fear, to be aware and thus avoid the dangers of the waterfall.

The awe and wonder that humans experience is not evidence of a God. “Nature inspires awe – awe of the reality of nature, not the fiction of God.”[xiv] The sense of awe is an emotional, psychological response to something so great, so vast, so beautiful that it causes us to marvel and wonder how it is possible. It inspires many humans to believe in a supernatural being in order to explain the amazing phenomenon.[xv] “The truth is far more inspiring and powerful than religious mythology. Knowing that the cosmos was not made just for us opens up whole new vistas of wonder and mystery – it makes it all the more surprising and amazing that we are here regardless.”[xvi]

“We have biases to see patterns and meaning and agency in the world, and the less rationally you think, the less likely you are to second-guess those biases. Awe might just let the spiritual floodgates open. The experience of awe leads to magical thinking, but that doesn’t mean it can’t also lead to scientific thinking. Once you’re done writing your poetry, you may still be driven to write the equations or conduct the experiments that will explain what you’ve just witnessed. We all have the Wow! We just choose our own ways of answering the How?”[xvii]

Beautiful things are often new and unique and so the fact that humans can recognize beautiful things means that they can better recognize new situations and better survive them. The observation of beautiful things is the start of the scientific process as observation is the first step. The more scientific an organism can be, the more they can learn and survive in this world.

So beauty and art have developed to help organisms survive better to pass on their genes to the next generation. They are products of this natural world and are not evidence of a God or gods.

 

By Brian Mariani and others

 

Is the above correct? Do you evolutionists agree with this position? I have tried to write it as you believe it. Do you have any disagreements or concerns or additions?

Before commenting, please read the following disclosures.

Any offensive language will automatically disqualify your comment for publication, even if the arguments contained are good. Please comment on the ideas that are presented and not the presenter.  If your comment becomes an ad hominem argument and does not substantially address the issue, your comment will be disqualified as well.  We are looking for real arguments, not fallacious ones, so that we can present and challenge opposing ideas and arguments as they are truly believed by evolutionists.  We do not want to tear down straw men as well as you do not want to be misrepresented. Also, please keep your comments as brief as possible, and if the majority of the comment does not address the current issue, but becomes a red-herring, it will not be posted as well. If your comment does not fall into one of the above restrictions, then your comment will be posted unedited (you may want to check your spelling, grammar, etc.) We thank you for your time and comments.

One thing to keep in mind, each blog is one piece of evidence. Evidence has to then be interpreted, which is not a fact…but evidence strengthening or weakening a specific hypothesis or theory. So there can be multiple ways of interpreting the same evidence. I am not being unscientific, but asking more questions and being skeptical is being more scientific. I am still working on these, so please help with your comments.

 

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

 

[i] God Caused Beauty, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/aesthetics/, accessed August 22, 2014.

[ii] Roger Sandall, Beauty, Art, and Darwin: The American Magazine, American.com, http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/beauty-art-and-darwin, accessed August 23, 2014.

[iii] Russell Husted, Beauty: By Evolution or Creative Design?, Beauty: By Evolution or Creative Design?, http://www.in-this-place.com/id18.htm or https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/3Ty_MqBSnzE, accessed August 23, 2014.

[iv] Nancy E. Aiken, An Evolutionary Perspective on the Nature of Art, American Psychological Association – Division 10, http://www.apa.org/divisions/div10/articles/aiken.html, accessed August 23, 2014.

[v] Austin Cline, Myth: Atheists Can’t Appreciate Love & Beauty, Can’t Believe in Love or Beauty, About.com Agnosticism/Atheism, http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmeaninglesshopeless/a/AtheistsBeauty.htm, accessed August 22, 2014.

Hannah Ginsborg, Kant’s Aesthetics and Teleology, 2013, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#2.6, accessed August 22, 2014.

[vi] Frank Zindler, Ethics Without Gods, American Atheists, http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics, accessed August 22, 2014.

[vii] Austin Cline, Myth: Atheists Can’t Appreciate Love & Beauty, Can’t Believe in Love or Beauty, About.com Agnosticism/Atheism, http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmeaninglesshopeless/a/AtheistsBeauty.htm, accessed August 22, 2014.

[viii] Austin Cline, Myth: Atheists Can’t Appreciate Love & Beauty, Can’t Believe in Love or Beauty, About.com Agnosticism/Atheism, http://atheism.about.com/od/atheismmeaninglesshopeless/a/AtheistsBeauty.htm, accessed August 22, 2014.

[ix] Frank Zindler, Ethics Without Gods, American Atheists, http://www.atheists.org/activism/resources/ethics, accessed August 22, 2014.

[x] Russell Husted, Beauty: By Evolution or Creative Design?, Beauty: By Evolution or Creative Design?, http://www.in-this-place.com/id18.htm or https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/alt.bible.prophecy/3Ty_MqBSnzE, accessed August 23, 2014.

[xi] Pallab Ghosh, ‘Oldest musical instrument’ found, June 25, 2009, BBC News, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8117915.stm, accessed July 25, 2014.

Michael Marshall, Bear DNA is clue to age of Chaevet cave art, April 19, 2011, New Scientist, Magazine issue 2809, http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028093.900-bear-dna-is-clue-to-age-of-chauvet-cave-art.html#.U9KueHl0zZ4, accessed July 25, 2014.

Don Hitchcock, Chauvet Cave, last update November 13, 2013, Don’s Maps, http://www.donsmaps.com/chauvetcave.html, accessed July 25, 2014.

[xii] Roger Sandall, Beauty, Art, and Darwin: The American Magazine, American.com, http://www.american.com/archive/2009/october/beauty-art-and-darwin, accessed August 23, 2014.

[xiii] In attracting mates, male bowerbirds appear to rely on special optical effect, September 9, 2010, Phys.org, http://phys.org/news203257106.html, accessed August 22, 2014.

[xiv] Chapter Seven: Beyond Religion, Section 7: This wondrous universe, God would be an atheist, http://www.godwouldbeanatheist.com/7beyond/707wond.htm, accessed August 23, 2014.

[xv] Matthew Hutson, Awe Increases Religious Belief: The sense of awe leads to a sense of the divine, December 11, 2013, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201312/awe-increases-religious-belief, accessed August 23, 2014.

[xvi] In Awe of Everything, Daylight Atheism, Pantheos.com, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/daylightatheism/essays/in-awe-of-everything/, accessed August 23, 2014.

[xvii] Matthew Hutson, Awe Increases Religious Belief: The sense of awe leads to a sense of the divine, December 11, 2013, Psychology Today, http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201312/awe-increases-religious-belief, accessed August 23, 2014.

The Drive into a Storm?

 

Not long ago, I was reflecting on the goodness of God in our constant travels, and wanted to give an example from a recent event.

The seminar had been scheduled for some time. People were planning to be there that Saturday afternoon in Pinedale, Wyoming. However, the weather stations reported that the temperatures had just reached unseasonable lows in Pinedale (29 degrees below zero). The reports also indicated that snow and winds were likely to make driving the 350 Major stormmiles to the Pinedale seminar rather iffy. What do we do? We are the speakers! Prepare the jeep! Replace marginal tires with high traction ones. Pack some tire chains! Check the antifreeze. Yep! It tested for minus 39! Good thing we recently replaced the battery! Load the jeep with blankets and down sleeping bags, and plenty of cold winter clothing.  We were ready to go. If they didn’t close the highways, we would be there the night before, which would give some margin of safety.

Mary Jo’s sisters, who had come for a visit, were also scheduled to leave that same morning. Janet was heading East, over the mountains, with snow predicted. Carol was heading northwest and right into the middle of the huge storm. It didn’t look very pretty, but neither one thought they could delay their trip.

So then, it was time for the most important preparation! We prayed together and then each of us headed out in different directions. Later that evening, we all praised Jesus for protection and almost totally dry roads! The storm had not yet hit the southern mountain route for Jan. Carol’s daughter, who was following the storm pattern, recommended her going much further west before heading north, where she eventually encountered winter driving the next day.  For us, we could see huge walls of storm clouds just to the east , as well as to the west, while we drove north through a corridor of frequent sunshine (and mostly dry pavement) all the way to the city limit of Pinedale!

The next day’s seminar went great with good attendance and keen interest. Besides that, the Lord warmed it up for us by about 20 degrees, even though temps only raised to just below zero.  He also gave us favorable weather and mostly clear roads for our trip back home to Grand Junction. PTL!

 

Dave Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

God is Working!

Aimee, Caden, and I are thoroughly enjoying this roadtrip and trying to make the most of the time and the regions that we have experienced. To recap the last four weeks:

  • Praise God, the trip is going well so far! Brian Teaching Creation
  • Praise God, we have presented at 8 ½ Creation Groups, 2 Christian School Groups, 1 church service, interviewed several students on a college campus, and did 1 vendor booth for a charity race. We have attended 2 different Creation Museums. We have had meetings with ICR, Creation Today, CMI, and Creation Training Initiative as well as 4 different business men! And there is much more planned in the first half of December!
  • Praise God that we met a student in Texas that has applied and is very excited about DCTI!
  • Praise God for some very good connections and contacts and several good donations!
  • Praise God that over 6000 miles of driving so far (averaging 3-4 hours a day), the weather and driving have been great, and Caden has done really well. Caden seems to appreciate being out of the car more now!
  • Praise God for a large donation at a church we didn’t even present at!
  • Praise God for tremendous new experiences of logistically planning a trip of this magnitude and for gaining great practice speaking for groups!
  • Praise God for all the great regional food that we have had the fun of trying along the way. We’ve especially enjoyed the blessing of several home cooked meals from many gracious people!
  • Praise God for a couple of catch-up and rest days with Aimee’s sister in North Carolina. It was nice to stay in one place with family for a couple days!
  • Praise God for the encouragement from many elder Creation ministry folks excited about having our young blood working in Creation ministry!
  • Praise God for the rest and great family time together during this Thanksgiving weekend: everyone is loving the time playing with Caden and we are truly very blessed! 

I hope this was entertaining for you and a blessing to you to see how God is working. Please keep praying for more good opportunities and for more good donations and supporters for the school! Our goal is to, by the end of the year, add 200 more people that see our vision and will give at least $25 per month of ongoing support for DCTI. We want to see normal, everyday people being used by God to teach Creation and the gospel in their local community and to support what we believe God has called us to!

God Bless You All!

-Brian

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.

American University Hostility

 

I just read an article where Ravi Zacharias, one of the leading Christian Apologists, was quoted as saying that American universities are becoming more hostile to Christians than the Middle East. The online story, quotes Zacharias saying:

Ravi Zacharias

Ravi Zacharias – Photo from rzim.org

“If you had asked me [which is more hostile, the Middle East or an Ivy League campus] even last year, I would have probably said, ‘Clearly the tension is greater in those parts of the world, because one wrong word and you don’t know whether you’d be boxed and sent back or what,’” Zacharias said on Glenn Beck’s radio program Monday. “But you know, our university campuses are getting pretty hostile, too. I was at an Ivy League school earlier this year and had to walk with security. Unbelievable.”

Although Mary Jo and I did not have to hire security officers to accompany us while teaching Creation this fall (at the 6 universities where we spoke ), we certainly have experienced hostility. As Zacharias points out in the article, the hostility is more ridicule and mocking than physical assault. (Thank you, Lord!)

I would agree with Zacharias about the mocking. In fact, one of the leading spokespersons for the atheists had told his audience that in order to win this battle, his fellow skeptics would have to learn to “mock and scoff.”  That is exactly what we experience on the campus. With this type of hostility, in order to present creation on the university campus, you have to have a tough hide and strong emotional fortitude!

One student came by our booth at the University in Mankato, Minnesota, where the large poster board had the title of that night’s presentation, “Best Proofs of Evolution??  Think Again!” He cocked his head and snorted, “Huhhhhnn!” He turned back, and repeated his routine again before sauntering into the dining hall still throwing his head back several more times and likely repeating, “Huhhhhnn!”

If he thought that would discourage our attempts to present the truth of Creation, it didn’t. I actually caught up with him to deliver a personal invitation to talk about it and come to our presentation that evening.  He didn’t make it that night. His form of hostility – mocking and ridicule — merely made me chuckle at the state of “human evolution” (or lack thereof) on the university campus.

 

By Dave Nutting

If you would like to see if an AOI seminar is right for you, or you would like to help the work of Alpha Omega Institute, please visit our website events page or our donate page. Keep up to date with what AOI is doing.  Thanks for your partnership.