All posts in The Biggest Challenges to Evolution

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.

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.

Laws of Logic – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Everyone uses the laws of logic, and they are evidence of the nature, design, and existence of God. Christians use the laws of logic to provide substantiation to the idea that God’s word is true, just as naturalists/evolutionists use them to argue their beliefs. God gave us the tools of logic so we can think, grow, learn, and do science.

The laws of logic “are rooted in God’s own nature. Indeed, some scholars think the passage ‘In the beginning was the Word [logos]’ (Jn 1:1) is accurately translated, ‘In the beginning was Logic (a divine, rational mind).’”[i]

There are numerous laws of logic.[ii] One of them is called the law of non-contradiction, which states that it is impossible for something to both be true and false at the same time and in the same sense. For example it is contradictory, or it doesn’t make sense, to say that “a banana is a fruit and a banana is not a fruit.” The banana is either a fruit or it isn’t. Another law is called the law of identity, where something is actually the same with itself and different from another, or not something different than itself. The law of excluded middle says that there are only two choices in every proposition, either it has to be true (and its negation false) or false (and its negation true). “The Principle of Sufficient Reason is a powerful and controversial philosophical principle stipulating that everything must have a reason or cause.”[iii] “The Law of Cause and Effect states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent or simultaneous cause.”[iv]

Naturalists can’t sufficiently answer why these laws exist and will even try to ignore the laws of logic in some cases. In fact, one apologist says “perhaps the Law of Cause and Effect seems intuitive to most, but common sense is foreign to many when God is brought into the discussion.”[v] This is true when naturalists are forced to try to explain the cause of the universe without the most logical cause (the all-powerful, outside of time and space, God). The naturalistic worldview has a lot of unanswerable questions.

God did not create the laws of logic. The “laws of logic are contingent on God. They are a reflection of the way God thinks. Thus, they cannot exist without Him any more than your reflection in a mirror can exist without you.”[vi] Since God has always existed and thought, the laws of logic are also eternal. “It is impossible for God to think illogically because in the Christian worldview, logic is a description of the way God thinks. The believer has a universal standard of reasoning that makes sense within his own worldview. The atheist does not.” [vii] The atheist, who claims that the laws of logic are eternal, “fails to explain how the Laws of Logic can be eternal and uncaused and what role they play in causing all other contingent realities.”[viii]

Icon of Paul the Apostle, Wikimedia Commons.

Icon of Paul the Apostle, Wikimedia Commons.

“The Christian worldview can make sense of [the] laws of logic. The Christian believes in universal, immaterial, invariant entities because God is himself omnipresent, immaterial, and invariant…As one example…the law of non-contradiction reflects God’s internal consistency: all truth is in God (Colossians 2:3), and God cannot deny himself (2 Timothy 2:13); therefore, all truth cannot be contradictory. The Christian worldview makes sense of the law of non-contradiction…Atheists do believe in laws of logic, but they cannot justify the existence of universal, abstract, invariant laws within their worldview.” They cannot answer “why should there be a law of non-contradiction, or for that matter, any laws of reasoning? An unjustified belief is arbitrary, which is one form of irrationality…In particular, those atheists who hold to a materialistic philosophy cannot make sense of laws of logic because laws of logic are not material.”[ix] “You can’t stub your toe on a law of logic.”[x]

Evolutionists have to borrow from fundamental Christian concepts to even be able to argue their points about evolution. “The debate over the existence of God is a bit like a debate over the existence of air. Can you imagine someone arguing that air doesn’t actually exist? He would offer seemingly excellent “proofs” against the existence of air, while simultaneously breathing air and expecting that we can hear his words as the sound is transmitted through the air. In order for us to hear and understand his claim, it would have to be wrong. Likewise, the atheist, in arguing that God does not exist must use laws of logic that only make sense if God does exist. In order for his argument to make sense, it would have to be wrong.”

The laws of logic could not develop slowly and could not be a product of evolution, but would have to exist conceptually from the beginning. As astrophysicist and apologist Dr. Jason Lisle asked, “if the brain is simply the result of mindless evolutionary processes that conveyed some sort of survival value in the past, why should we trust its conclusions?”[xi] Check out more of his explanations:

“The atheist might say, ‘Well, I can reason just fine, and I don’t believe in God.’ But this is no different than the critic of air saying, ‘Well, I can breathe just fine, and I don’t believe in air.’”

“The atheist might respond, ‘Laws of logic are conventions made up by man’…So, in some cultures it might be perfectly fine to contradict yourself. In some societies truth could be self-contradictory. Clearly that wouldn’t do. If laws of logic are just conventions, then they are not universal laws. Rational debate would be impossible if laws of logic were conventional, because the two opponents could simply pick different standards for reasoning. Each would be right according to his own arbitrary standard.”

“The atheist might respond, ‘Laws of logic are material—they are made of electro-chemical connections in the brain.’ But then the laws of logic are not universal…In fact, if the laws of logic are just electro-chemical connections in the brain, then they would differ somewhat from person to person because everyone has different connections in their brain,” and thus they would be an arbitrary (and conflicting) standard, not universal.

“Sometimes an atheist will attempt to answer with a more pragmatic response: ‘We use the laws of logic because they work.’ Unfortunately for him, that isn’t the question. We all agree the laws of logic work; they work because they’re true. The question is why do they exist in the first place? How can the atheist account for absolute standards of reasoning like the laws of logic? How can non-material things like laws exist if the universe is material only?”

“As a last resort, the atheist may give up a strictly materialistic view and agree that there are immaterial, universal laws. This is a huge concession; after all, if a person is willing to concede that immaterial, universal, unchanging entities can exist, then he must consider the possibility that God exists. But this concession does not save the atheist’s position. He must still justify the laws of logic. Why do they exist? And what is the point of contact between the material physical world and the immaterial world of logic? In other words, why does the material universe feel compelled to obey immaterial laws? The atheist cannot answer these questions. His worldview cannot be justified; it is arbitrary and thus irrational.”[xii]

Critics of the Bible often claim that one is illogical in believing that the miracles happened as described within the Bible. They “might argue that such things cannot happen based on known natural laws. With this we [creationists] agree. But who said that natural laws are the limit of what is possible? The biblical God is not bound by natural laws.”[xiii] With this and the evidence above, a belief in God is a very logical and consistent worldview.

“When the critic simply dismisses those claims of the Bible that do not appeal to his personal, unargued sense of what is possible, he is being irrational. He is committing the logical fallacy known as ‘begging the question.’ Namely, he has decided in advance that such things as miracles are impossible, thereby tacitly assuming that the Bible is not true because it contains miracles. But this is the very assumption with which he began his reasoning. The critic is reasoning in a vicious circle. He has decided in advance that there is not an all-powerful God who is capable of doing the things recorded in Scripture, and then argues on this basis against the biblical God.”[xiv]

Many “claim that the biblical doctrine of the Trinity is self-contradictory, it is not. The oneness and threeness of God refer to different aspects. The three eternal and co-equal Persons of the Godhead—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—are the same in essence but distinct in role—three Persons (or three centres of consciousness) and one Being.”[xv]

Many supposed contradictions within the historical texts of the Bible have been reconciled and ultimately are very minor or unrelated to the doctrinal claims and the internal and external consistency of the Bible.[xvi] “An important aspect of contradiction is self-refutation. Many statements by anti-Christians might appear reasonable on the surface, but when the statement is turned on itself, it refutes itself. Some common examples are:

  • ‘There is no truth’—this would mean that this sentence itself is not true.
  • ‘We can never know anything for certain’—so how could we know that for certain?
  • ‘A statement is only meaningful if it is either a necessary truth of logic or can be tested empirically’ (the once popular verification criterion for meaning of the ‘Logical Positivists’)—this statement itself is neither a necessary truth of logic nor can it be tested empirically, so it is meaningless by its own criteria.
  • ‘There are no moral absolutes, so we ought to be tolerant of other people’s morals’—but ‘ought’ implies a moral absolute that toleration is good.”[xvii]

 

“By embracing materialism, the atheist has destroyed the possibility of knowledge, as well as science and technology…Only the God of the Bible can be the foundation for knowledge (Proverbs 1:7; Colossians 2:3)…Since God has revealed Himself to man, we are able to know and use logic.”[xviii] The laws of logic are a tool that God has given us to use to help others see the evidence for God and to believe on Him. In Titus 1:9 (NIV), the apostle Paul instructs that a believer “must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who opposite it.”

 

What the Bible Says: Gen 6:5, Ps 14:1, Prov 1:7, Is 1:18, Is 55:8-9, Rom 9:19-21, Rom 12:1-2, 1 Cor 2:16, 2 Cor 10:4-5, Col 2:3, 2 Tim 2:13, Titus 1:9, Heb 1:3, Heb 13:8, James 1:17, 1 Pet 3:15, 2 Pet 3:8.

 

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] J.P. Moreland, What Are the Three Laws of Logic, April 20, 2011, Christian Apologetics, http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/what-are-the-three-laws-of-logic/, The Apologetics Study Bible,

[ii] Laws of logic, About.com, http://atheism.about.com/library/glossary/general/bldef_lawsoflogic.htm, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iii] Yitzhak Melamed and Martin Lin, Principle of Sufficient Reason, September 14, 2010, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/sufficient-reason/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iv] Jeff Miller, God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality, 2011, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716, accessed July 24, 2014.

[v] Jeff Miller, God and the Laws of Science: The Law of Causality, 2011, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=12&article=3716, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vi] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vii] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[viii] J. Warner Wallace, Is God Real? Examining Atheistic Explanations for the Laws of Logic as “Brute Realities,” March 20, 2014, A Disciple’s Study, Cold Case Christianity, http://llamapacker.wordpress.com/2014/03/page/13/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ix] Jason Lisle, Did God Create Logic?, December 7, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/did-god-create-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Can You Have Logic Without Laws?, 2012, Your Origins Matter: Conversations, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.youroriginsmatter.com/conversations/view/can-you-have-logic-without-laws/31, accessed July 24, 2014.

[x] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xi] Darius Viet and Karin Viet, Are the Laws of Logic Really Laws?, November 11, 2011, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/are-the-laws-of-logic-really-laws/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xii] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiii] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 13: Is the Christian Worldview Logical?, May 5, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiv] Jason Lisle, The New Answers Book 3, Chapter 13: Is the Christian Worldview Logical?, May 5, 2014, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/logic/is-the-christian-worldview-logical/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xv] Jonathan D. Sarfati, Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, August 1998, Journal of Creation 12(2): 142-151, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xvi]Jay Smith, Alex Chowdhry, Toby Jepson, James Schaeffer, 101 Cleared-up Contradictions in the Bible, http://www.debate.org.uk/debate-topics/apologetic/contrads/, accessed February 28, 2014.

Supposed Bible Contradictions: Scripture Index, Answers in Genesis, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/contradictions-scripture-index, accessed February 28, 2014.

Eric Lyons, M. Min., The Myth of “Factual Bible Contradictions, Apologetics Press, http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=40, accessed February 28, 2014.

[xvii] Jonathan D. Sarfati, Loving God with all your mind: logic and creation, August 1998, Journal of Creation 12(2): 142-151, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/loving-god-with-all-your-mind-logic-and-creation, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xviii] Jason Lisle, Atheism: An Irrational Worldview, October 10, 2007, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/world-religions/atheism/atheism-an-irrational-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Laws of Logic – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

What is logic and how does it work? We use logic everyday, even when we don’t think about it. “A simple definition of logic is ‘the study of right reason.’”[i] The laws of logic appear to be standardized, set rules for how to think. The laws of logic are important because without them science, and thinking in general, would not even be possible and humans would not able to develop any sort of advancements. Without the laws of logic, one would not even be able to debate or argue, such as we are doing now.

Many believe that humans have evolved and developed and are now able to understand (the development and use) those laws. Yet some believe that God created humans fully developed, intelligent, and with the primary tools of logic from our very creation. What are some of the laws of logic? How did the laws of logic come about? Did their origin come about from an intelligent being like God or could they have come about naturally?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Everyone uses the laws of logic to prove their points when teaching, or in arguments and debates. There is no scientific understanding of how they originated. They are philosophical concepts and thus science cannot explain or prove them. Some believe that the laws of logic have existed before the universe and some say that at the beginning of the Universe, at the beginning of time, space, and matter, the laws of logic just happened – just like how the earth just happened to develop where it has – naturally. A world in which the laws of logic do not exist “makes no sense.”[ii]

Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze  bust of Aristotle by Lysippus, c. 330 BCE.  The alabaster mantle is modern. - photo from Wikipedia commons.

Roman copy in marble of a Greek bronze
bust of Aristotle by Lysippus, c. 330 BCE.
The alabaster mantle is modern. – photo from Wikipedia commons.

Some say that “the categories of logic did not drop from the clouds. These forms have taken shape in the course of the socio-historical development of humankind. They are elementary generalizations of reality, reflected in the minds of men and women.”[iii] The laws of logic are developed and created by man to be able to communicate reasonably with each other. “You don’t need a mind for time to exist, but you do for “September” or “ten o’clock.” And you don’t need a mind for logic to exist, but you do for the laws of logic.[iv] The laws of logic exist in the human mind because of human intelligence. “The universe isn’t subject to any laws of logic. The universe merely exists.”[v] Some also suggest that the laws of logic have developed (or merely exist) due to the sophisticated chemical make-up of the evolved human brain. Those with higher levels and abilities of logic and reasoning may even be more evolved.

A law of logic is “not a physical thing. But it is not a non-physical thing either. It is not an entity of any sort. It is a rule that can be expressed in the form of a hypothetical imperative: “If you have ‘if p, then q,’ and you have ‘p,’ then conclude q.” There is nothing at all mysterious, transcendent, or otherworldly about such a rule. It is just an instruction, an effective procedure for getting a valid inference from the given premises.” Materialistic atheists are not “illicitly reifying the rules of inference, turning them into transcendent entities.”[vi]

“The law of non-contradiction states that for any proposition p, ~(p & ~p), that is, it is not the case that both p and not-p. Do we need a transcendent ground or supernatural basis to justify or validate this rule? No, all we need is to recognize the futility of rejecting it…The law of non-contradiction is not an abstract, ideal entity. It is simply a rule we have to follow if we are to communicate anything at all.”[vii]

“Even odder is [the] claim that rational reasoning would be impossible without the biblical God. Couldn’t Allah be the eternal ground of logic? Why not Platonic ideas? Why not the Flying Spaghetti Monster?”[viii]

Some say that “the laws of logic actually require no explanation. Have you ever asked a Christian to explain why God exists? You probably received an answer that God’s existence requires no external explanation. God exists necessarily…Things that exist contingently require an explanation of their existence. Things that exist necessarily do not…The laws of logic are uncreated and exist necessarily. They could not have been otherwise. Therefore, the argument goes as follows:

  1. The laws of logic are necessary.
  2. Things that exist necessarily do not require an explanation of their existence.
  3. Therefore, any worldview that recognizes this adequately accounts for the laws of logic.”[ix]

Another way to say this is the Christian’s “stopping point [‘God did it.’ or ‘God just exists.’] is based on nothing. It has no evidence to support it. Contrast that with the naturalists’ logical and mathematical axioms. Unlike God, these aren’t taken on faith. They’re tested continually. Why would we want to ground the one that is strongly confirmed with evidence (logic) with the one that isn’t (God)? Why demand something solid to hold up the fundamental axioms but then use faith to hold up God?”[x]

“I’ll admit that “that’s just the way it is” isn’t completely satisfying, but “God did it” resolves nothing. The apologist won’t tell us why or how God exists; he just exists. This informs us as much as “fairies did it.” But if the Christian can have a fundamental assumption about reality (God), so can the naturalist (natural axioms)…But “God did it” is simply a repackaging of “I don’t know.” It tells us nothing new. I’m no smarter after hearing “God did it” than before. How did God do it? Why did God do it?”[xi]

Creationists claim that it is logical to think that things are so intricate that they necessitate a designer. “When falling sand in an hourglass forms a cone, does that require a supernatural cone maker? When a river changes course as it meanders over a flat valley, does that demand a river designer? When there is an earthquake, must the timing and placement of that be supernaturally ordained? No, there natural explanations for all these things.”[xii]

The Christian worldview is illogical in that Christians, with no evidence, have blind faith in a fairy-tale being, different in the Old Testament and in the New Testament, who performs miracles outside of the known laws of science. Many of the miracles may have actually been real scientific phenomena that these ancient people didn’t understand and therefore resorted to a god-figure or rather a Trinitarian god-figure, which also breaks the law of non-contradiction. How can God be three yet also be only one? All of these things, not to mention all of the contradictions within the Bible, clearly show that Christianity is illogical.

If God created the laws of logic, then he would have had to act illogically before he created them or possibly God is bound to the laws of logic and thus God is limited by these concepts. Can God violate the laws of logic? Whether yes or no, in this case, as well, either God is illogical or is limited. These are reasons why the idea of God does not make sense. The claim that “God did it” is simply asserted as truth without any evidence to back it up. “God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance.”[xiii]

 

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] Bill Pratt, Is God Subject to Logic?, September 13, 2010, Tough Questions Answered, http://www.toughquestionsanswered.org/2010/09/13/is-god-subject-to-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ii] Michael Martin, Does Logic Presuppose the Existence of the Christian God?, 2000, The Secular Web, http://infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/logic.html, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iii] Spacebuddha, Formal Logic and Dialectics, July 26, 2006, The Rational Response Squad, http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/philosophy_and_psychology_with_chaoslord_and_todangst/9293, http://www.marxist.com/science-old/logicanddialectics.html, accessed July 24, 2014.

[iv] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[v] The Laws of Classical Logic, October 6, 2012, http://editthis.info/logic/The_Laws_of_Classical_Logic, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vi] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[vii] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[viii] Keith Parsons, God and the “Laws of Logic”, November 13, 2007, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/secularoutpost/2007/11/13/god-and-the-laws-of-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[ix] Mike, Explaining Logic, September 30, 2011, Foxhole Atheism, http://foxholeatheism.com/explaining-logic/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[x] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xi] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (2 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-2-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-3-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xii] Bob Seidensticker, A Dozen Responses to the Transcendental Argument for God (3 of 3), December 4, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/12/a-dozen-responses-to-the-transcendental-argument-for-god-3-of-3/, accessed July 24, 2014.

[xiii] Bob Seidensticker, Do Atheists Borrow From the Christian Worldview?, April 22, 2013, Pantheos, http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined/2013/04/do-atheists-borrow-from-the-christian-worldview/, accessed July 24, 2014.

Modern Physics – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

Physics (and math) have been discovered, not evolved. Naturalism can’t explain why physics and math are the way they are. Some naturalists don’t see this as a problem, because the fact that these mathematical and physical laws and principles exist is proof that they had to have formed to make the universe. “It’s perfect just because it is” isn’t a satisfactory answer. Naturalism doesn’t have an answer for how or why the laws of physics exist.

“Quantum mechanics [QM] really works, and has been strongly supported by experiment. The history and practice of QM shows no hidden motivation to attack a biblical world view, in contrast to uniformitarian geology and evolutionary biology.”[i] Naturalists believe that the use of modern physics does, and will, give further evidence that there is no God and that they don’t need God. But from a creationist perspective, modern physics does, and will, continue to show the complexity of life and the universe , attesting to the fact that there is a supreme creator, an intelligence behind it all. Humankind will never catch up to the information hidden and evident within existence and that is a testimony to God’s wonderful omniscience.

In-The-BeginningGod has planned all of these things out, because He is all-knowing and all-powerful. In response to Stephen Hawking’s conclusion that there is no need for a creator, he places his faith in the idea that because of quantum mechanics, particles can “pop” into existence out of nothing. “So is it possible that the universe just popped into existence out of the vacuum through nothing more than a quantum fluctuation? Some people think so, although they seem to conveniently forget that the laws of quantum physics would have had to already be in existence, so one could not say that the universe created itself ‘out of nothing’. Others have pointed out, however, that the lifetime of quantum events is inversely proportional to the mass of the object and this precludes any such cosmological quantum event. If a universe did pop into existence by quantum fluctuation, nobody would notice—the lifetime of a quantum event the size of our universe would be less than 10-103 seconds. Moreover, virtual particles today appear within the vacuum of space. In the primordial singularity there was no space and so no vacuum.”[ii]

Hawking also assumes that God has to act within time to create the universe. Hawking’s definition of God is flawed, in that, God is actually timeless and spaceless, not being limited by those constraints. Hawking and Naturalism still can’t explain the origin of the law of causality, the laws of physics, as well as numerous other laws and concepts. “This inability to provide a cogent replacement for God as the source of scientific law is hardly surprising. Once you dismiss the concept of a Creator God who is not only a living supernatural being, but one who is also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, it certainly is difficult to contrive an adequate substitute.”[iii]

In an attempt to answer the challenges to naturalism, naturalists suggest “that the universe is a three-dimensional ‘membrane’ floating through a four-dimensional ‘bulk universe’…They invoke higher dimensions and String theory to explain how their universe began and why it is. This is an appeal to new physics way beyond what we know now and can even hope to test experimentally, because it involves many more dimensions and takes place in some hypothetical past epoch and space.”[iv]

“This approach has been proposed with M theory, a form of String theory in as many as 11 dimensions (or even 28 in one form). Famously Leonard Susskind labelled the “M” in M theory as meaning ‘monstrous’. [The “M” stands for Membrane, though many think it should stand for “Magic,” “Mystery,” “Mother,” “Majesty,” “Madness” or other words that might fit better.[v]] M Theory and its cousin, String theory, are not physics but mathematics, which lack any predictive power in the real world and hence are untestable. This seems to me to be a grab for a solution, to find an uncaused cause, because the big bang (with its unbiblical sequence of events) needs a first cause.”[vi]

Because of the mysterious nature, one interpretation of Quantum Mechanics suggests that “it refutes both materialism and determinism opening the scientific door to the divine influence in the universe…it could provide a model for soul body interaction,” and the quantum mechanical indeterminacy may be “God working in the universe.”[vii] This is not to say that God is limited to working within known laws and processes, but possibly that the spiritual realm is quantum-ly entangled with the physical realm. “God is both the programmer and the source of power.”[viii]

These mysteries are tangible examples of how God is infinite, whereas we are finite. It is still mental gymnastics for us to try to figure out how our universe functions. God designed us for continual learning and the ability to do science (growing in knowledge) and that is part of what Heaven will be like – to be ALWAYS learning MORE about God. Heaven will not be a boring place. If we can slow down and appreciate how amazing and complicated our world is, we will realize that we will never stop learning and enjoying God’s creation.

 

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] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Williams, A., and Hartnett, J., Dismantling the Big Bang, Master Books, Arizona, 2005, p. 120.

Russell Grigg, Curiosity: Did God create the universe?, November 12, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/curiosity-did-god-create-the-universe, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[v] M theory: what does it stand for? – Parallel Universes, Horizon, February 14, 2002, BBC Science, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-wUh_eMtnFg, http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/parallelunitrans.shtml, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] John Hartnett, The singularity – a ‘Dark’ beginning: Did the universe form spontaneously from nothing?, July 15, 2014, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/dark-beginning, accessed July 18, 2014.

[vii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

Modern Physics – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

 

Introduction:

Sir Isaac Newton

Godfrey Kneller’s 1689 portrait of Isaac Newton (age 46) – Wikipedia

Modern Physics is the extension of previous levels of physics and is therefore the study of the fundamental and “weird” interactions that occur in our universe. Sir Isaac Newton really founded the study of physics by his understanding of gravity and forces (now called Newtonian or Classical Physics) and since then, modern physics has taken our understanding to a whole new level.

Quantum Mechanics was developed based on the research of atoms and subatomic particles. Quantum Mechanics gets its name from the discovery that energy within atoms is quantized, meaning that the smallest amounts of energy come in small packets or quanta (like integers – only 1, 2, 3, etc), rather than any variable amount of energy (like 2.63 or 5.41 or anywhere in between). Initial research was based on blackbody radiation, the photoelectric effect, and the atomic nature of elements. There are now “several classes of phenomena called ‘quantum effects.’” Some of the conclusions from the new physics can breach on the weird and paradoxical, as we shall see.

In Quantum Mechanics, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that at any given time, you simply cannot know both the position and velocity of an electron. You can know only one, or the other, at any given time and therefore you will not be able to tell where it will be later. The Wave-Particle Duality says that light and electrons act as both a wave and a particle, which seems contradictory and very mysterious. Because particles can have wave properties, quantum tunneling (a particle can instantaneously jump across a solid barrier) is thought to be possible. This phenomenon is theorized to be part of brain activity.[i] Quantum Entanglement is possible in that two or more particles can be in the same quantum state and then, even when separated by a great distance, when one of the particles is acted on, the other(s) is simultaneously affected. Because of Quantum Entanglement, Quantum Teleportation may be possible by acting on one of the entangled particles, which will then cause a reaction of the other entangled particle and thus we may be able to send information, or particles, with potentially “faster than light communication methods.” This means that you could change something locally and instantly affect the universe some distance away without any time needed for the information to travel that distance.[ii]

Two quantum effects are observable on the macroscopic scale with superconductors and superfluids. Superconductors can be created, at the right temperature, to cause the material to have no electrical resistance and therefore able to magnetically levitate. Also, if again we are at the right temperature, superfluids will have no viscosity.[iii]

If none of that seems weird to you yet, consider the most common interpretation of quantum mechanics… the Copenhagen Interpretation.  This interpretation suggests that particles exist in all of the possible quantum states, but when the particle is observed, then the quantum wave function collapses, meaning that you only end up seeing the particle in one state rather than all the states that it may have actually been in before…at the same time. Another interpretation is the Consistent History interpretation in that quantum mechanics only gives the probabilities of the possible histories.[iv] “Quantum mechanics says that we cannot tell for certain what property value will emerge when we take the measurement – all we can ever say is that the value will be a random choice from a selection of possible values.” “It’s as if the measurement process actually creates the property value.”[v] “The very act of observing will cause the phenomenon being observed to change—thus the term observer effect.”[vi] The famous example of this is the Schrödinger’s Cat thought experiment where either the cat is alive in a box or dead in a box and the theory seems to say that maybe it is both at the same time, until you open the box to observe the one real truth. “Ultimately the only thing that matters are the experimental results”[vii] that are observed.

Scientists are hopeful to use the properties of Quantum Mechanics to create Quantum computers. These will, for all intents and purposes, be able to compute practically every possible scenario simultaneously. There is currently a lot of controversy and challenges to this technology, but many expect this technology to be the way of the future.[viii]

There is evidence that quantum tunneling is a component of our sense of smell, and quantum entanglement may play a part in bird migration and navigation. “Also, supposedly primitive purple bacteria exploit quantum mechanics to make their photosynthesis 95% efficient. They use a complex of tiny antennae to harvest light, but this complex can be distorted which could harm efficiency. However, because of the wave and particle nature of light and matter, although it absorbs a single photon at a time, the wave nature means that the photon is briefly everywhere in the antenna complex at once. Then of all possible pathways, it is absorbed in the most efficient manner, regardless of any shape changes in the complex. As with the previous example, quantum coherence is normally observable at extremely low temperatures, but these bacteria manage at ordinary temperatures.”[ix]

Albert Einstein

Albert Einstein

Einstein developed his theories of General and Special Relativity to explain that gravity and an objects speed will change the length and mass of an object and the passage of time. With more gravity and more speed, time will slow down.[x]

Particle Physics and Quark Theory have also arisen, which is adding to what we know about the elementary particles. “According to the [Quark] theory, there are six types of quarks. Many particles, such as protons and neutrons, consist of the combination of two quarks. The different combinations of quarks lead to different particles…In recent years, particle physicists have in similar fashion developed string theory. Physicists have noticed that certain patterns among elementary particles can be explained easily if particles behave as tiny vibrating strings…As theoretical physicists refine their theories and we build new, powerful particle accelerators, physicists expect that one day we can test whether string theory is true, but for now there is no experimental evidence for string theory… Currently, most physicists think that string theory is a very promising idea. Assuming that string theory is true, there still remains the question as to which particular version of string theory is the correct one. You see, string theory is not a single theory but instead is a broad outline of a number of possible theories. Once we confirm string theory, we can constrain which version properly describes our world. If true, string theory could lead to new technologies.”[xi] But some think that “string theory has many problems”[xii] so it remains to be seen if this theory will hold out or be replaced as more tests are completed.

Modern physicists are currently working on combining the different theories of modern physics into one unified Theory of Everything (TOE). “Consequently, resolving the inconsistencies between both theories [relativity and quantum physics] has been a major goal of 20th and 21st century physics. Many prominent physicists, including Stephen Hawking, have labored for many years in the attempt to discover a theory underlying everything. This TOE would combine not only the different models of subatomic physics, but also derive the four fundamental forces of nature – the strong force, electromagnetism, the weak force, and gravity – from a single force or phenomenon. While Stephen Hawking was initially a believer in the Theory of Everything, after considering Gödel’s Incompleteness Theorem, he has concluded that one is not obtainable.”[xiii] Other researchers are still hopeful to unlock the ultimate Theory of Everything.

Do we really understand Modern Physics? What do we really know for sure? How will our understanding of physics change in the future? Does physics tell us anything about God?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

Einstein’s theories of relativity show that around black holes, time will be slower the closer one gets, until, within the black hole, time would actually stop, or rather, would not exist. Stephen Hawking explains how this would be true and that there was no time “before” the big bang. Hawking also describes how in quantum physics, particles can “pop” into existence from nowhere and therefore there is no problem with the idea that an entire universe explodes from nothing, out of nowhere. It is even possible that the universe is uncaused, because there is no time for a something or some creator to cause the universe. Therefore, there is no need to say that any creator caused the universe.[xiv]

Living organisms appear to have evolved to use quantum mechanical advantages within nature. “In artificial systems, quantum superposition and entanglement typically decay rapidly unless cryogenic temperatures are used. Could life have evolved to exploit such delicate phenomena? Certain migratory birds have the ability to sense very subtle variations in Earth’s magnetic field. Here we apply quantum information theory and the widely accepted “radical pair” model to analyze recent experimental observations of the avian compass. We find that superposition and entanglement are sustained in this living system for at least tens of microseconds, exceeding the durations achieved in the best comparable man-made molecular systems. This conclusion is starkly at variance with the view that life is too “warm and wet” for such quantum phenomena to endure.”[xv]

As scientists continue the study and understanding of modern physics, there will be better explanations for everything and therefore completely overwhelm the need that many people have to resort to God or any sort of gods as the original cause. Naturalistic processes can explain everything, even the origin of the universe. Part of the excitement is the mystery in the things that we don’t know and understand yet, and that is what makes the process of science so great. The god of lightning, the sun god, the moon god, the rain god and multitudes of other gods have been successfully dethroned. Based on this, there is an extremely high probability that there is no need for any other god, not one. It would be foolish to resort to believing in a magical god just because some questions and mysteries are still unanswered.

 

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] Friedrich Beck, Synaptic Quantum Tunnelling in Brain Activity, NeuroQuantology, June 2008, Vol 6, Issue 2, p. 140-151, http://www.neuroquantology.com/index.php/journal/article/view/168/168, accessed July 19, 2014.

[ii] Rupert Ursin, Thomas Jennewein, Markus Aspelmeyer, Rainer Kaltenbaek, Michael Lindenthal, Philip Walther, Anton Zeilinger, Brief Communications, Communications: Quantum teleportation across the Danube, August 19, 2004, Nature 430, 849, http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v430/n7002/abs/430849a.html, accessed July 21, 2014.

[iii] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Luke Mastin, Quanta and Wave-Particle Duality, 2009, Main Topics: Quantum Theory and the Uncertainty Principle, The Physics of the Universe, http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_quantum_quanta.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[iv] Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://www.genesismission.4t.com/Physics/qm.htm, accessed July 19, 2014.

[v] Andrew Thomas, The Quantum Casino, http://www.ipod.org.uk/reality/reality_quantum_casino.asp, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vi] Desmond Allen, An Apology and Unification Theory for the Reconciliation of Physical Matter and Metaphysical Cognizance, February 22, 2008, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/reconciliation-of-physical-matter-and-metaphysical-cognizance/, accessed July 21, 2014.

[vii] Interpretations of Quantum physics, Genesis Mission, http://gscim.com/phy/Quantum_Mechanics/Interpretations_of_Quantum_Mechanics.html, accessed July 19, 2014.

[viii] Nicola Jones, Computing: The quantum company, D-Wave is pioneering a novel way of making quantum computers – but it is also courting controversy, June 19, 2013, Nature, http://www.nature.com/news/computing-the-quantum-company-1.13212, accessed July 21, 2014.

[ix] Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

[x] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xi] Danny Faulkner, The New Answers Book 2, Chapter 30: Do Creationists Believe in “Weird” Physics like Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, and String Theory?, September 2, 2010, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/physics/do-creationists-believe-in-weird-physics/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xii] Russell Grigg, Stephen Hawking: Key to the Cosmos, August 21, 2012, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/key-to-the-cosmos, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiii] Quantum mechanics, Wikipedia, last modified July 14, 2014, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Stephen Hawking, “Gödel and the end of physics,” last modified November 23, 2011, Strings 2002, Cambridge, July 15-20, http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/events/strings02/dirac/hawking/, accessed July 19, 2014.

[xiv] Did God Create The Universe?, August 7, 2011, Curiosity, Discovery Channel, http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/curiosity/topics/did-god-create-the-universe.htm, accessed July 18, 2014.

[xv] Gauger, E.M. et al., Sustained Quantum Coherence and Entanglement in the Avian Compass, Physical Rev. Lett. 106: 040503, 2011 P-I-P-E doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.106.040503.

Jonathan Sarfati, Should creationists accept quantum mechanics?, November 25, 2011, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/creationists-quantum-mechanics, accessed July 19, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Creation Perspective

 

Creation Answer:

According to the National Geomagnetic Initiative, “the mechanism for generating the geomagnetic field remains one of the central unresolved problems in geosciences.”[i] “Magnetism is almost as much of a puzzle now as it was when William Gilbert (1544-1603) wrote his classic text, ‘Concerning Magnetism, Magnetic Bodies, and the Great Magnet, Earth’ in 1600.”[ii]

Earth's Interior“What a planet needs in order to produce a strong magnetic field is (1) a liquid conducting (metallic) interior and (2) rapid rotation to get the conducting material moving about.”[iii] The magnetic field is based on the amount of the liquid swirling within the earth. The faster the moving currents, the stronger the magnetic field would be. “If the liquid interior becomes solid or if the rotation slows down, the magnetic field will weaken.”[iv] Over time, the earth, like most things, has been cooling and its rotation slowing so the magnetic field is expected to weaken.

Naturalism needs a way for magnetic fields to continually recharge, and this they call the Dynamo effect. “Currents create a magnetic field–a distribution of magnetic forces–and the essence of the self-sustaining dynamo problem is to find solutions such that the resulting magnetic field is also the input field required for generating the current in the first place…Actually, that is only the lowest level of the problem, in which one is free to prescribe the motions. To solve the full problem, we also need information about the heat sources, and these sources must be able to drive motions which also solve the dynamo problem.”[v]

“Scientists are still not sure about what provides the heat in the Earth’s core. It might come from some of the iron becoming solid and joining the inner core, or perhaps it is generated by radioactivity, like the heat of the Earth’s crust.” [vi] “Such problems are not easy. They involve intricate mathematics and are not yet fully solved.” [vii] “Evolutionary dynamo theories do not have a good explanation for the rapid decay of the field.”[viii]

The Earth’s magnetic field must have been much stronger in the past, and in fact it has weakened, at a minimum, of about 7% since the first recordings in 1827. By knowing the intensity, one can calculate the amount of electrical energy as well. Based on the Dynamic Decay theory, which is a creation model of the magnetic fields, the intensity and energy are both noticeably going down and it fits with both a young earth and global flood model.[ix]

“Archaeomagnetism” is the study of the magnetization of bricks, pottery, campfire stones, and other man-related objects studied by archaeologists…the data show that the field intensity at the earth’s surface fluctuated wildly up and down during the third millennium before Christ. A final fluctuation slowly increased the intensity until it reached a peak (50% higher than today) at about the time of Christ. Then it began a slowly accelerating decrease. By about 1000 A.D., the decrease was nearly as fast as it is today…Archaeomagnetic data taken worldwide show that the intensity of the earth’s magnetic field was about 40% greater in 1000 A.D. than it is today, and that it has declined steadily since then.” [x] Therefore, there is no way that these fields were formed billions of years ago; if it were a normal strength billions of years ago, it would be really weak or essentially gone today. “The maximum age for the Earth’s magnetic field: about 20,000 Years.”[xi] “But even in this extreme case, the maximum age would still be only about 100,000 years, far short of the billions of years evolution needs.”[xii]

“Paleomagnetism is the study of magnetization locked into rocks at the time of their formation. Paleomagnetic data shows that while the geologic strata were being laid down, the earth’s magnetic field reversed its direction hundreds of times. Reversals are a very severe departure from steady decay of intensity,”[xiii] the once prevailing Creationist theory. Creation Physicist Dr. Russell Humphreys “suggested that strong flows of the fluid in the earth’s core could produce rapid reversals of the field during [“most of the reversals occurred in the Flood year, every week or two.”[xiv]] and after the Genesis flood. The resulting disturbances in the core would cause the field intensity at the earth’s surface to fluctuate up and down for thousands of years afterwards.”[xv] For this theory, he “showed a specific physical mechanism for such reversals.”[xvi]

“Dr Humphreys also proposed a test for his model: magnetic reversals should be found in rocks known to have cooled in days or weeks [around the time of the flood]. For example, in a thin lava flow, the outside would cool first, and record earth’s magnetic field in one direction; the inside would cool later, and record the field in another direction. Three years after this prediction, leading researchers Robert Coe and Michel Prévot found a thin lava layer that must have cooled within 15 days, and had 90° of reversal recorded continuously in it. And it was no fluke—eight years later, they reported an even faster reversal. This was staggering news to them and the rest of the evolutionary community, but strong support for Humphreys’ model.”[xvii]

To allow for a dynamo causing a long-lasting magnetic field, the core needs to be liquid. Mercury still has a magnetic field, but “Mercury is so small that the general opinion is that the planet should have frozen solid eons ago.”[xviii] In fact, in a recent mission to Mercury, “Messenger found that Mercury’s field strength had fallen by almost eight percent since its last measurement 36 years earlier. This works out to a half-life of about 320 years. In other words, Mercury loses half its magnetic field strength every 300 years or so. This is an astonishingly quick rate for an entire planet. It’s also very close to the predictions of Dr. Humphrey’s Bible-based model for Mercury. On the other hand, it thoroughly contradicts secular expectations. With a half-life of 320 years, Mercury’s field should have been completely gone billions of years ago – if Mercury were actually billions of years old.”[xix]

Ganymede - moon

Ganymede

Naturalistic models say that Ganymede can’t have a magnetic field…but it does. Saturn’s “magnetic field doesn’t match evolutionary predictions at all.” Creation models fit the evidence better and based on his models, Dr. Humphreys correctly predicted the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, which are very abnormal in that the magnetic fields “are strongly offset from their rotation axis. This discovery was contrary to evolutionary predictions, but is consistent with creation.”[xx] Naturalists still can’t explain “‘the enigma of lunar magnetism’—the moon once had a strong magnetic field, although it rotates only once a month…[and] it never had a molten core.”[xxi] The sun’s magnetic field reverses every 11 years, “but its ultimate causes remain mysterious.”[xxii]

Naturalistic scientists “continually adjust various magnetic dynamo theories, but none yet proposed have succeeded in theoretically upholding the magnetic field strength over the billions of years since the planets supposedly formed.”[xxiii] The naturalistic dynamo “model contradicts some basic laws of physics. Furthermore, their model fails to explain the modern, measured electric current in the seafloor. Nor can it explain the past field reversals, computer simulations notwithstanding.”[xxiv] “Evolution’s long-age dynamo model fails to match the data. In contrast, a quickly decaying, rapidly fluctuating magnetic field fits the free decay model and an age for earth of only thousands of years.”[xxv]

 

 

What the Bible Says: Psalms 91, Proverbs 3:5

 

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] U.S. Geodynamics Committee, National Research Council, The National Geomagnetic Initiative, 1993, The National Academies Press, http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=2238 or http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=2238&page=1, accessed June 30, 2014, page 3.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[ii] S.R. Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, pp. 163-164.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[iii] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[iv] Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[v] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vi] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[vii] David P. Stern, 13. The Self Sustaining Dynamo in the Earth’s Core: Origin of The Earth’s Magnetism, February 23, 2008, http://www.phy6.org/earthmag/dynamos2.htm, accessed July 22, 2014.

[viii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[ix] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[x] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xi] Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiii] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xiv] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xv] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvi] D. Russell Humphreys, The Earth’s Magnetic Field Is Young, 1993, Acts & Facts 22 (8), Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/371/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xvii] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.S. Coe and M. Prévot, Evidence suggesting extremely rapid field variation during a geomagnetic reversal, Earth and Planetary Science 92(3/4):292–298, April 1989. See also the reports by Dr Andrew Snelling, Fossil magnetism reveals rapid reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, Creation 13(3):46–50, 1991 The Earth’s magnetic field and the age of the Earth, Creation 13(4):44–48, 1991.

R.S. Coe, M. Prévot and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374(6564):687–692, 1995; see also A. Snelling, The principle of ‘least astonishment’, Journal of Creation 9(2):138–139, 1995.

[xviii] S.R.Taylor, Destiny or Chance: our solar system and its place in the cosmos, p. 163.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xix] Spike Psarris, Mercury: New Discoveries Delight Creationists, Alpha Omega Insistute and CreationAstronomy.com, http://www.discovercreation.org/newsletters/MercuryNewDiscoveriesDelightCreationists.htm, accessed June 30, 2014.

Magnetic Fields, May 11, 2013, Astronomy Notes, http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm, July 22, 2014.

[xx] Dr. Jason Lisle, Creation Astronomy: Viewing the Universe Through Biblical Glasses, Answers in Genesis – USA, Creation Library, DVD, 2006.

Spike Psarris, What You Aren’t Being Told About Astronomy, Vol I Our Created Solar System, Creation Astronomy Media, DVD, 2009.

[xxi] Jonathan Sarfati, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence that the earth is young, March 1998, Creation 20(2):15-17, Creation Ministries International, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidence-that-the-earth-is-young, accessed July 22, 2014.

Irene Antonenko, New Insights into the Moon’s Mysterious Magnetic Field, January 30, 2012, Universe Today, http://www.universetoday.com/93118/new-insights-into-the-moons-mysterious-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

R.T. Merrill and M.W. McElhinney, The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Academic Press, London, pp. 101–106, 1983.

[xxii] Mike Wall, Sun’s Magnetic Field Reversal Still A Scientific Mystery, August 13, 2013, The Huffington Post, Space.com, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/13/sun-magnetic-field-reversal-scientific-mystery_n_3748515.html, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiii] Brian Thomas, Saturn’s Magnetic Field Auroras: Evidence for Creation, June 4, 2014, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/8175/, accessed July 22, 2014.

[xxiv] Andrew Snelling, #5 Rapidly Decaying Magnetic Field: 10 Best Evidences From Science That Confirm a Young Earth, September 11, 2012, Answers in Genesis, https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/5-rapidly-decaying-magnetic-field/, accessed July 22, 2014.

  1. J. Lanzerotti, et al., “Measurements of the Large-Scale Direct-Current Earth Potential and Possible Implications for the Geomagnetic Dynamo,” Science 229, no. 4708 (1985): 47–49.
  2. Russell Humphreys, “Can Evolutionists Now Explain the Earth’s Magnetic Field?” Creation Research Society Quarterly 33, no. 3 (1996): 184–185.

[xxv] Brian Thomas, Magnetic Field Data Confirm Creation Model, December 28, 2010, Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/article/magnetic-field-data-confirm-creation/, accessed July 22, 2014.

Strong Magnetic Fields – Naturalistic/Evolutionary Perspective

Magnetic Fields

Introduction:

The earth and many other planets, and even the sun, currently retain very strong magnetic fields. Over time those magnetic fields should have weakened. Is there a phenomenon that can recharge dying magnetic fields? How are these magnetic fields formed? Are magnetic fields formed naturally or designed by God for our protection? How do the magnetic fields really affect earth? What does the evidence tell us about the age of the earth and the universe?

 

Naturalistic/Evolutionary Answer:

The earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and its magnetic field is due to the movement of charged metals within the earth’s liquid outer core. This moving of charged metals will always form a magnetic field around them naturally. The earth formed with swirling currents of hot, molten rock, which simultaneously created magnetic fields associated with the swirling mass. So the earth has always had a strong magnetic field, and for that matter, magnetic fields have probably formed around most, if not all, other astronomical objects as well. The human body even has a slight magnetic field. The earth’s magnetic field has a positive impact on this planet as it shields harmful solar and celestial radiation from entering our atmosphere.

Over earth’s history, the chaotic currents are like a “dynamo” inside the earth, which is always moving and causing the magnetic field to change constantly and these “magnetic fields morph and push and pull at one another.” From ocean sediment cores and surveys and the fossil record, magnetic fields are recorded in the rocks and specifically show that the poles even occasionally flip, making the north pole the south pole and then back again. This pole reversal happens “about every 200,000 to 300,000 years, although it has been more than twice that long since the last reversal.” “Scientists estimate reversals have happened at least hundreds of times over the past three billion years,” and each reversal may take a few thousand years. Fortunately, these pole reversals don’t appear to cause environmental problems or exposure to harmful radiation , since there still is a magnetic field, it is just changing.[i]

The earth’s magnetic field has actually weakened by 10% since the 19th century, but University of California professor Gary Glatzmaier says that “the field is increasing or decreasing all the time.” “We know this from studies of the paleomagnetic record.” He also explains that that 10% is a relatively small amount of change and that “Earth’s present-day magnetic field is, in fact, much stronger than normal…twice (as much as) the million-year average.”[ii]

 

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] 2012: Magnetic Pole Reversal Happens All The (Geologic) Time, November 30, 2011, NASA, http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/2012-poleReversal.html, accessed November 1, 2013.

[ii] Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field, December 29, 2003, NASA Science, Science News, http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29dec_magneticfield/, accessed November 1, 2013.