• Job 26:8  hub
• Job 28:24-26  hub
• Job 36:27-29  hub
• Psalm 135:7  hub
• Ecclesiastes 1:6-7  hub
• Isaiah 55:9-11  hub
• Daniel 2:43  hub
• Amos 5:8  hub
• John 1:3  hub
• Colossians 1:16-17  hub
• Hebrews 3:4  hub
• Hebrews 11:3  hub

The half-life of Carbon 14 is shorter than 6,000 years so its 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. Carbon 14 is just one type of radiometric dating, there are others. All radiation-based dating methods are based on four assumptions:

1. We know how much of radioactive isotope "α" (alpha) was originally present.
2. We know how much of the inert daughter mineral "β" (beta) was originally present.
3. We know the rate of decay from isotope "α" to inert "β".
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 zygotes 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 eyewitness. (Job 38:4, Luke 1:2, 1 John 1:1-3)

Radiation was essentially discovered in 1896 (by Henri Becquerel and Marie Curie) and using it for dating began in the 1940s. Darwin published his infamous book, The Origin of Species, in 1859. 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.

» QCCSA: The end of long age radiometric dating
» Carbon 14 Dating Calculator

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 more than half water. At different ages and different situations in life the percentage varies from 55-75%. Have you ever noticed that water is almost the only compound 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 freeze 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 the flood in Noah's time. God invented water, and everything else. (Job 38:29-30)

If there really was a world wide flood, what would the evidence be? Besides billions of dead things burried in rock layers all over the earth, there would be a lot of water. There is estimated over 300 million cubic miles (over a billion cubic kilometers) of water on our planet today. Where'd it all come from? Evolutionists assume asteroids (meteors) are responsible, and even if they each brought a cubic mile, whoa, that'd be a lot of big meteors. We know God created the water, and in fact the earth was at first either all water or 100% covered in water (Genesis 1:2, 1:6-7, 1:9-10). Being mentioned in the second verse of the first chapter means it was one of the first things God made, and it was the first specifically named thing (besides the earth which was a vague concept at this point, because it was "formless," and the universe, which is also pretty vague). Today our planet is 71% covered by water (note, covered by is not the same thing as consisting of). Is it a coincidence or something more that the the human body and the surface of the earth are so much water? Also note, water was one of the first things God made and humanity was the last. Water is also special because it's one of the fundamental things only implied that God made. God made everything (Genesis 1:1 and John 1:1-3) but the fundamentals like light, land, plants, animals, stars, etc. were explicitly described as "God said let there be." The fundamental concepts of space, time, matter, energy, and information were only implied, as was water.

» What Liquid, Aside From Water, Expands When Frozen?
» How Much of Your Body Is Water?
» How Much Water is There on Earth?

Many of the states in the USA have passed laws relating to the levels of CO₂ our engines should emit. The story goes that too much is harmful to both humans and the climate.

• Miners know the safety limit in an underground mine is 5,000ppm. Between 1960 and 2010 the ppm in our atmosphere rose by about 25%. Scary stuff, right? But it was only at about 400ppm in 2010 (beginning in 1960 it rose less than 2ppm per year for the next 50 years). Theoretically, if we keep adding another 2ppm per year, we could get to that 5,000ppm safety concern in 2,300 years. Except we don't have 2,000 years of fossil fuel left. And a century ago the limit was 10,000ppm. So the concern is completely misplaced.
• Anyone who took biology 101 knows plants need CO₂ to survive, and we need plants to survive (for multiple reasons). Plants and animals trade oxygen and carbon dioxide back and forth forever through breathing and photosynthesis. People don't "make" CO₂ and plants don't "make" O₂, we're exchanging it.
  • In hospitals we create oxygen-rich environments to help people recover/​heal/​grow. The same works for plants: when we immerse them in extra CO₂, they do better. Having more CO₂ in the atmosphere will help farmers and tree huggers.
  • Burning fossil fuels is just burning old plant matter, returning the CO₂ that was locked up in the matter that couldn't escape because of its burial conditions.
  • God made the atmosphere on or before day 3, which was when He made the plants (Genesis 1:6-11). When plants and animals were created they could live, so God made the atmosphere have the right amount of CO₂ and O₂ from the very beginning.
• The atmosphere is almost 80% nitrogen, over 20% oxygen, and less than half of one percent carbon dioxide.
• If anything is harmful to our air, it's smoke and other chemicals (such as those released by burning man-made materials), but not CO₂. Regulating man-made chemicals thrown into the air is being a good steward of the Earth. Regulating CO₂ is both a distraction and a waste of time.
• Atheists have a concern for CO₂ fueled by their evolutionary worldview. Christians have an appreciation for CO₂ inspired by our Biblical worldview.
• Isaiah 24:5 reminds us that the pollution of the earth by immoral (sinful) human behavior is infinitely worse than pollution by amoral garbage.

» AiG: A Proposed Bible-Science Perspective on Global Warming

Proteins are long strings of amino acids and are the building blocks of cells, which are the building blocks of life. The adult human body is estimated to be about 60% water, it's also about 16% fat, 16% proteins, and 6% minerals. The various proteins in our bodies are made of about 20 amino acids. We could compare these 20 amino acids to the letters in an alphabet, and stringing them together in specific sequences produces proteins. This is much like the letters in a sentence, in both cases we're making patterns that make sense and have purpose. Gibberish sentences and proteins are worthless and discarded. Since math is the language of science, let's run the numbers for self-organizing proteins.

What are the odds of putting together an average sized biological protein made of 400 amino acids? For comparison, what are the odds of rolling 1, 2, and 3, in order, using a standard 6 sided die? (A "die" is a single "dice", and this answer involves a lot of math. If math isn't your strong subject, don't get scared, just ignore the numbers and pay attention to the logic.) The odds of getting each number is 1 in 6 (or 1/6th). To calculate the probability we get any specific sequence in order is 1/6 multiplied by 1/6 for as many specific results as we want. So for a sequence of 3, we raise the fraction to the 3rd power, and the formula is (1/6)³, which is 1/216 (or 0.0046). So we should expect we may have to roll the die up to 216 times to get this sequence intentionally right. If it takes 5 seconds on average to roll the die each time, we would have to budget 1,080 seconds, or 18 minutes, to perform the experiment.

Now what if we have a 20 sided die, and want to get a specific sequence of 400 numbers in a row? Then we'd have a formula of (1/20)⁴⁰⁰. If we put this equation into Excel, the number is so small it returns an error. So we have to do this math by hand, and it'll be easier to do with powers of ten. We'll start by converting the fraction: 1/20 = 10^-1 ÷ 2

Then we need to raise that to the 400th power. The formula looks like:

(1/20)⁴⁰⁰   =   (10^-1 ÷ 2)⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-400 ÷ 2⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-400 × 0.5⁴⁰⁰   =   10^-520

So we'd have to budget running the experiment 10⁵²⁰ times to get the specific result we're looking for. Ok, let's switch back from the dice analogy to proteins. With a die, we can estimate how long each experiment will take because we can recreate this experiment at will. But we've never seen how fast evolution supposedly works, other than we've been told it's a very slow process. So let's again use math to calculate how long we have to budget for the amino acids (the molecules) in a protein to self organize. In other words, let's see how long it might take to evolve just one protein by random chance.

There are an estimated 10⁸¹ atoms in the known universe. When we have four hundred 20-sided dice, that's 8,000 numbers. In scientific notation that's 10^3.90309, and to make the math simpler let's round to 10⁴. If there are 10⁸¹ atoms in the universe, and we use 10⁴ atoms per experiment (exp.), then that means we could conduct:

10⁸¹ atoms ÷ 10⁴ atoms per exp. = 10⁷⁷ concurrent exp.

Knowing how many experiments we need to run and how many we can run at the same time, we can calculate the total time needed to run all the experiments:

10⁵²⁰ exp. ÷ 10⁷⁷ exp. at a time = 10⁴⁴³ units of time

But what is the unit? The shortest time recognized in physics is named Planck time, which is 10^-44 seconds. It's not actually measurable, but is derived from physical constants. Let's pretend each experiment takes 1 Planck time. This is completely unwarranted, but helps the math be simpler and works in favor of the evolutionist. There are about 10 million (or 10⁷) seconds per year.

10⁷ seconds per year ÷ 10^-44 seconds per exp. = 10⁵¹ exp. per year

To make a single protein, assuming each experiment took no more than 1 Planck and there are zero interruptions in the experimentation process:

10⁴⁴³ units of time for all exp. ÷ 10⁵¹ exp. per year = 10³⁹³ years

If you thought 10 (or even 13) billion years old was a long time, you're going to love 10³⁹³. The closest we can get to relating to this is there are 10¹⁴ (a hundred trillion) atoms in a single typical human cell, and there are 10⁸¹ atoms in the entire universe. For all practical purposes, 10³⁹³ years are infinitely longer than 10¹⁰. And that's just how long we have to budget to make a protein with 400 amino acids, some are much bigger. But one protein by itself isn't enough for life, so we have to do the whole experiment multiple times to achieve even the very first lifeform. A conservative estimate says there are 100,000 distinct proteins in a human, and remember we used all atoms in the universe so you can't make more than one protein at a time with this formula. And this still couldn't explain where life came from, it could only explain where the building blocks for life came from. But where life came from at this point is moot because the math has made the evolutionary argument impotent anyway.

What insight does this strategically, statistically, and empirically reveal? Consider the facts. Evolution was postulated long before Darwin, but he catapulted it into popularity and the accepted realm of science. Darwin died in 1882. He took his voyage on the Beagle from 1831-1836, and published his infamous book On the Origin of Species in 1859. The first cell was discovered in 1665 but cellular theory took until 1839. DNA wasn't discovered until a decade after Darwin published his book, then knowing what it was had to wait at least 84 more years (1953) when x-ray technology was brought to bear. Darwin and his contemporaries had no idea how complex biology was when they made up evolution. For the last century, science has been objectively exposing their wishful thinking more and more clearly, even if millions of people still prefer his anecdote over the truth of God's word. But truth has consequences.

Remember, they think the universe is 13 billion (10¹⁰), the Earth is 4.5 billion, and the earliest multicellular organisms are supposedly 1 billion years old. That means the first proteins only had a maximum of 3.5 billion (10^9.55) years to evolve. But remember proteins aren't enough, we also need entire cells, and every one of those cells need to specialize and both have and turn into complex systems, including DNA, sensory organs, nervous systems, sexuality, etc. And if we thought a 400 sequence protein was big, DNA has more than a billion base pairs, and nothing we theoretically evolved in any of the above experiments count for anything towards building DNA. If you thought 10³⁹³ was big...

If evolution is made up garbage, then what else is there? If the Bible is right about everything it describes in the natural world, then what about the supernatural? Give it (God) a chance (John 3:12). (For a longer version of this topic, check my spin off article: Dice, Probability, Proteins, Infinity, & Eternity, here.

» Science and Faith: Kingdoms in Conflict?
» How big is the "average" protein?
» How many atoms are there in the universe?
» How many atoms are there in the Earth?
» Earth's Interior & Plate Tectonics (for percent of the surface)
» How many proteins in the human proteome?
» Wikipedia: Planck time
» Wikipedia: Charles Darwin
» Covalent radius, Wikipedia
» What is the Surface Area of the Earth?
» How Old Is Earth?
» Wikipedia: Evolutionary history of life

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.

» Wikipedia: Wave-particle duality
» Wikipedia: Complementarity (physics)
» The world’s first image of light as both a particle and a wave

Carbon is element number 6 on the Periodic Table. It's been observed that the Earth's crust is only somewhere between 0.032% and 0.18% Carbon. It's either not in the top ten, or number 10, depending on which resource you use. Here's one:

1. Oxygen 46.6%
2. Silicon 28.0%
3. Aluminum 8.1%
4. Iron 5.0%
5. Calcium 3.6%
6. Sodium 2.8%
7. Potassium 2.6%
8. Magnesium 2.1%
9. Titanium 0.6%
10. Hydrogen 0.2%

Contrast this to the atomic makeup of the human body:

1. Oxygen 65.0%
2. Carbon 18.5%
3. Hydrogen 9.5%
4. Nitrogen 3.2%
5. Calcium 1.5%
6. Phosphorus 1.0%
7. Potassium 0.4%
8. Sulfur 0.3%
9. Sodium 0.2%
10. Chlorine 0.2%

Of the top 10, only 2 are close (Oxygen and Calcium) and the rest are pretty far off. This may be little more than interesting trivia. But if we evolved by accident, wouldn't we expect to have evolved using a more abundant element? If we were supernaturally created by an intelligent designer, He would be at liberty to use whatever elements would work best to make us, regardless of how common He decided to make those elements in the rest of the world.

Additionally, God decided what the characteristics of each element would be. He didn't pick them up and just figure out how He could use them. He decided each one's boiling and melting points, their crystal structure, how many electrons, whether they'd be stable, etc. (Hebrews 3:4) So why are we made out of Carbon? I'm not aware of an interesting answer, yet, but I'm sure there is one...

» Facts About Carbon
» The Most Abundant Elements In The Earth's Crust
» The Eight Most Abundant Elements in the Earth's Crust
» Wikipedia: Composition of the human body

---