Creation vs Evolution FAQ



Site: Jayden12.com Rock Creation/Evolution Chemistry (Mobile) - Full Site

Field: AstronomyArchaeologyChemistryBiologyPhilosophyTheologyConclusion





Chemistry & Physics



Hasn't Carbon dating proven many things are millions of years old?
The half life of Carbon 14 is shorter than 6,000 years so it's maximum capability for dating is less than 60,000 years. If someone says they used Carbon 14 to date something as hundreds of thousands or millions of years old then they don't know what they're talking about. All radiation-based dating methods are based on four assumptions:
  1. We know how much of radioactive isotope "A" was originally present.
  2. We know how much of the inert daughter mineral "B" was originally present.
  3. We know the rate of decay from isotope "A" to inert "B".
  4. We know the radiating process was constant and uncontaminated.
Error on any one of these four assumptions will invalidate any conclusions. How would we know any of them for sure if we weren't there the whole time? We can't, we can only hypothesize/​theorize (both are fancy, adult synonyms of the word "guess"). But remember, God made Adam and Eve, the stars and the trees mature, so if we were to Carbon date a rock on day 10, would the process really have provided the intended result? God's not trying to trick us, this just shows His awesome power. If Adam and the rest of the life forms God created had been created as zygots and seeds, it would've taken years for them to mature. But God wanted to enjoy his creation on day 7, so that's one reason (He surely had many) He created everything mature. Contrast the Bible was written by people who were there or were told what to write by another eye witness. (Job 38:4, Luke 1:2, 1 John 1:1-3)

Note that radiation was essentially discovered in 1896 (by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie) and using it for dating began in the 1940s. Darwin wrote his infamous book, The Origin of Species, in 1850. Evolutionists already knew what they wanted this new dating system to conclude (just as they had with the fossil record). The fact that it is a house of cards, based on extravagant assumptions is dismissed by all of them, and refuted by none. (Isaiah 29:15)
» QCCSA: The end of long age radiometric dating
» Carbon 14 Dating Calculator
What does H2O have to do with anything?
Water is one of those things that is required for life as we know it. Without it life does not exist, period. The human body is 50-60% water. Have you ever noticed that water is one of the few compounds found in nature that expands when it freezes? This is not just random trivia. Consider what would happen to our ecosystem if lakes and ponds froze from the bottom up instead of from the top down? As it is, the ice forms insulation and the life in that body of water is not completely destroyed (compare to the "frost line" in the ground where everything dies after a frost). Coincidence, dumb luck? I think not. The word "water" is found 436 times in the NIV translation, most notably its association with baptism (mentioned 26 times) including Noah's flood (Genesis 6-9). God invented water, and everything else (Proverbs 3:19-20).

What do the oceans have to do with anything?
There are two significant points:
  • Salt: Each year approximately 450 million tons of sodium enters our oceans, but only about a quarter of that makes its way back out. At most it would take 40-50,000 (four zeros) years to accumulate this much salt, yet evolutionists think the oceans are a couple billion (nine zeros) years old?
  • Mud: Plate tectonics add an estimated 1 billion tons of sediment to the ocean floor per year, but 19 billion more are added by erosion from dry land. At most it would take only around 10,000 years to accumulate this much mud.
In both cases, when I say "at most", we must remember that God created everything mature (Genesis 1) and the world wide flood (Genesis 7:11-12) would have significantly upset the ecosystem, so believing those maximum numbers are overstated by 10-50% is much easier for creationists than the 99.9983% understatement evolutions must believe in. (Psalm 24:1-2, Psalm 146:5-6)
» AIG: Evidence for a Young World
» AIG/ICR: Reiterating: ok to use sea sodium as evidence for a young world
The most obvious thing in the universe is an exception to an unwritten law of nature?
All energy is expressed as either a particle or a wave. (Sound and water exemplify wave energy, electricity and radiation exemplifying particles.) However there is one exception, light has been demonstrated to behave like both at the same time. I am unaware of this being a specific proof for either side of the argument but it sure is weird. You would not be surprised by something like this in a universe created by an infinitely creative God, but it does not make sense if the universe formed on its own (Revelation 4:11).
» Wikipedia: Wave-particle duality
» Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
» The world’s first image of light as both a particle and a wave
How could Noah have built a 450 foot wooden boat over 4 millennia ago? We couldn't even do this in the 20th century!
Making the Ark didn't take more skill than making a normal sized boat, it took more labor. Modern ships need to balance many constraints, like being light so they can be fast to maximize fuel efficiency and cross the Atlantic faster or have a chance of out maneuvering attackers. They also have to be affordable. The Ark could ignore all these concerns. It didn't even need a rudder, it just had to float, be stable, and meet God's specifications (Genesis 6:14-16). As an example, mortise and tenon planking is way too labor intensive for us in the 20th and 21st centuries, but wouldn't have been in the old days.
» Wyoming (schooner)
» AiG: Thinking Outside the Box






Last Modified: Thursday, October 26, 2017