Genuine question for Christians, sceptics about evolution versus creation. See below?

Question

What do Christians make of the fact that there have been more types of humans, or human cousins. this has been proven through skeletal analysis and carbon dating.

Skeletons of Homo sapiens, Neanderthol and Homo Erectus have been discovered to have all existed at the same time 150,000 years ago. they all had big skulls together with evidence of tool making, art work and burial traditions.

How do Chrisitans (and Jews) account for this? - Genunine question.

Answer 1

Bones overthrown
An interview with human-fossils researcher Marvin Lubenow

by Carl Wieland

Carl Wieland [CW]: Professor Lubenow, how would you summarize your approach to the study of human fossils?

Marvin Lubenow [ML]: In a sense I built upon the foundation of Professor Bill Rusch at Concordia College. Using the evolutionary time scale (for the sake of argument only), we categorize all the relevant fossils on a chart and then we can demonstrate that the human fossils, even as interpreted and dated by the evolutionist, do not demonstrate human evolution.

[CW]: Do you mean there is no evolutionary sequence in time?

[ML]: Right. The evidence shows that the various categories of humans were living as contemporaries—perhaps not on the same continent or in the same community, but at the same time, rather than being one grouping ancestral to the other.

An Australian specialist in human evolution, Dr Colin Groves, took you to task on this by saying that if the alleged ancestors and descendants are found all living at the same time, that proves nothing because a proportion of a population type 'A' might evolve into type 'B', while type 'A' persists to live alongside its evolutionary offspring.

I was rather surprised by his comment, because it seemed to me that he was saying something different to virtually all the other evolutionists I have read. The theory goes that population 'A' receives some mutations that give it a degree of superiority. If you have populations that are slightly superior living alongside populations that are slightly inferior, over a long period of time you're going to have interbreeding, and the organisms that have the inferior genes are going to compromise those that have the superior ones — so evolution could not proceed. Evolution allegedly proceeds by the death of the unfit as much as by the survival of the fit.

Could one say that the primary expectation, or prediction, of evolutionists would have been to find all these fossils — erectus, Neanderthal, archaic sapiens, and so on — in an evolutionary time sequence?

Yes. Note that Hitler believed that his purpose — as a good, consistent evolutionist — was to try to eliminate the 'inferior' Jewish people so they would not hinder the further evolution of the 'superior' German people. I don't mean to imply that all evolutionists are of Hitler's mentality, but I find it interesting that when evolutionists, correctly, maintain the equality of all of the races, they are actually denying the basic concepts of their own theory, because if all of the sub-species of a given group were absolutely equal, evolution would not have taken place.

Do you accept the evolutionary dating?

No. I am a young-earth creationist. I think that an outside age for the earth is perhaps 15,000 years, which is as far as we could really stretch the chronologies of Genesis, and even that is stretching them quite a bit.

Are you aware of any contradictions among evolutionary dates for human fossils?

In the evolutionary framework there is a rather high degree of conformity because they make it so. If a date for a given fossil does not conform to the theory, at least roughly, it is changed. The history of Skull 1470 — the skull that Richard Leakey found in 1972 — reveals that very clearly. Even though you had consistency of four or five different methods of dating at 2.9 million years, because the skull was 'too modern' in appearance, for 10 years there was a bitter argument in scientific circles as to the dating of this skull. And it was dated by many different approaches. At first they had conformity at 2.6 million years and then 2.4 million years, and later on they couldn't get conformity at the age they wanted, which is now about 1.9 million years, and so they used other assumptions entirely, as documented in my book, Bones of Contention. [See also 'The pigs took it all' Creation magazine, Vol.17 No.3 (June-August 1995), pp. 36-38.]

Evolutionists themselves have published comments (republished by us) suggesting that all the evidence for man's ancestry would fit in a single coffin or on a billiard table. Yet there seem to be many more fossils discussed than that. What do they mean by this?

I've wondered about that too — because already in 1977 the British Museum published data indicating over 4,000 relevant fossil discoveries — including the australopithecines, Ramapithecus, and so on. The only thing I can think of is that they were saying there were only a few fossils that they could use. For instance, most of the human fossils are useless to them because they're basically modern.

We often quote the work of Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy, on the australopithecines (like 'Lucy') to show that the anatomy was not intermediate between apes and men.

It's not. And in contrast to what Colin Groves said, in an article in Nature a few years ago Oxnard stated that since true humans appear to be as old as the australopithecines, this removes them from the ancestry of humans. This is the conclusion evolutionists would normally draw. Australopithecines are very real, extinct primates. Evolutionists refer to the footprints at Laetoli in Tanzania to say the australopithecines walked upright. However, the Lucy-types, which they say made these fossils, had curled toes, were only about three to four feet tall, had long arms ... in fact, they admit that, from the neck down, Lucy is basically a chimpanzee. But that's the only 'hominid' evolutionists are permitted to put in that time frame. Russell Tuttle at the University of Chicago investigated a tribe of people in Peru, who go habitually barefoot. He demonstrated with casts that their footprints are identical with those in Laetoli. And in an amazing statement, he not only denies that a 'Lucy' made these footprints, he says there was living at that time, as a contemporary with Lucy, another 'unknown primate' that made those footprints. Well, we believe that the 'unknown primate' was man, disregarding the evolutionary age, of course.

You've written that future discoveries are unlikely to be able to reinforce the situation for evolution. Why do you believe this?

There are fossils such as the Kanapoi hominid in Kenya, virtually identical to modern humans, going back 4.4 million years on their time-scale, and so that would rule out any transition from australopithecine to human after that point. In fact, most evolutionists say that these would be called modern humans if not for the time-scale. Therefore, any fossils found suggesting a sequence toward humans after that point have already been ruled out. I throw out a challenge: I say that my thinking can be falsified if they find a sequence from earlier australopithecines to human before 4.4 million years. Of course, there the fossil record is virtually blank.

How would you view the fossil individuals like Neanderthals, erectus specimens, archaic sapiens, and so on? If they were living at the same time in different parts of the world, what were they?

Varieties of post-Flood humans. The severe conditions of the post-Flood Ice Age would have contributed not only to genetic selection pressures, but to the disease of rickets, which can effect great changes in bony morphology, beginning from a very early age. I view Homo erectus and Neanderthal as being basically the same, Homo erectus being a smaller variant. And of course, there is tremendous diversity within the Homo erectus and the Neanderthal groups. And what is interesting is that some of the Neanderthals get more severe in their 'archaic' morphology as they approach the end of the Neanderthal sequence, the opposite of evolutionary expectations.

Finally, as a theologian, if you stick to exegetical and hermeneutical principles only, is there any doubt or room to move about what the days in Genesis were meant to be, or whether the Flood was global?

I don't feel there is. There's internal evidence and then external evidence in Exodus 20:11 for the days. And if you read the Flood account in Genesis, where it says so clearly that all the high mountains were covered, I don't see how anyone could legitimately interpret it as anything else.

Also, there have been many devastating local floods in history and yet God promised that he would never destroy the world again in that way. Frankly, I think we have to be honest, that if one says the Noahic Flood was just local, then that is saying God's a liar, which of course cannot be.

Professor Lubenow, thank you very much.


What about carbon dating?

by Don Batten (editor), Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati, and Carl Wieland

First published in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book
Chapter 4

How does the carbon ‘clock’ work? Is it reliable? What does carbon dating really show? What about other radiometric dating methods? Is there evidence that the earth is young?

People who ask about carbon-14 (14C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric1 dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years. People wonder how millions of years could be squeezed into the biblical account of history.

Clearly, such huge time periods cannot be fitted into the Bible without compromising what the Bible says about the goodness of God and the origin of sin, death and suffering—the reason Jesus came into the world.

Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said, ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6). This only makes sense with a time-line beginning with the creation week thousands of years ago. It makes no sense at all if man appeared at the end of billions of years.

We will deal with carbon dating first and then with the other dating methods.
How the carbon clock works

Carbon has unique properties that are essential for life on earth. Familiar to us as the black substance in charred wood, as diamonds, and the graphite in ‘lead’ pencils, carbon comes in several forms, or isotopes. One rare form has atoms that are 14 times as heavy as hydrogen atoms: carbon-14, or 14C, or radiocarbon.

Carbon-14 is made when cosmic rays knock neutrons out of atomic nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These displaced neutrons, now moving fast, hit ordinary nitrogen (14N) at lower altitudes, converting it into 14C. Unlike common carbon (12C), 14C is unstable and slowly decays, changing it back to nitrogen and releasing energy. This instability makes it radioactive.

Ordinary carbon (12C) is found in the carbon dioxide (CO2) in the air, which is taken up by plants, which in turn are eaten by animals. So a bone, or a leaf or a tree, or even a piece of wooden furniture, contains carbon. When the 14C has been formed, like ordinary carbon (12C), it combines with oxygen to give carbon dioxide (14CO2), and so it also gets cycled through the cells of plants and animals.

We can take a sample of air, count how many 12C atoms there are for every 14C atom, and calculate the 14C/12C ratio. Because 14C is so well mixed up with 12C, we expect to find that this ratio is the same if we sample a leaf from a tree, or a part of your body.

In living things, although 14C atoms are constantly changing back to 14N, they are still exchanging carbon with their surroundings, so the mixture remains about the same as in the atmosphere. However, as soon as a plant or animal dies, the 14C atoms which decay are no longer replaced, so the amount of 14C in that once-living thing decreases as time goes on. In other words, the 14C/12C ratio gets smaller. So, we have a ‘clock’ which starts ticking the moment something dies.

Obviously, this works only for things which were once living. It cannot be used to date volcanic rocks, for example.

The rate of decay of 14C is such that half of an amount will convert back to 14N in 5,730 years (plus or minus 40 years). This is the ‘half-life.’ So, in two half-lives, or 11,460 years, only one-quarter will be left. Thus, if the amount of 14C relative to 12C in a sample is one-quarter of that in living organisms at present, then it has a theoretical age of 11,460 years. Anything over about 50,000 years old, should theoretically have no detectable 14C left. That is why radiocarbon dating cannot give millions of years. In fact, if a sample contains 14C, it is good evidence that it is not millions of years old.

However, things are not quite so simple. First, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are. Furthermore, different types of plants discriminate differently. This also has to be corrected for.2

Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating. Then there was a rise in 14CO2 with the advent of atmospheric testing of atomic bombs in the 1950s.3 This would make things carbon-dated from that time appear younger than their true age.

Measurement of 14C in historically dated objects (e.g., seeds in the graves of historically dated tombs) enables the level of 14C in the atmosphere at that time to be estimated, and so partial calibration of the ‘clock’ is possible. Accordingly, carbon dating carefully applied to items from historical times can be useful. However, even with such historical calibration, archaeologists do not regard 14C dates as absolute because of frequent anomalies. They rely more on dating methods that link into historical records.

Outside the range of recorded history, calibration of the 14C clock is not possible.4
Other factors affecting carbon dating

The amount of cosmic rays penetrating the earth’s atmosphere affects the amount of 14C produced and therefore dating the system. The amount of cosmic rays reaching the earth varies with the sun’s activity, and with the earth's passage through magnetic clouds as the solar system travels around the Milky Way galaxy.

The strength of the earth’s magnetic field affects the amount of cosmic rays entering the atmosphere. A stronger magnetic field deflects more cosmic rays away from the earth. Overall, the energy of the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing,5 so more 14C is being produced now than in the past. This will make old things look older than they really are.

Also, the Genesis flood would have greatly upset the carbon balance. The flood buried a huge amount of carbon, which became coal, oil, etc., lowering the total 12C in the biosphere (including the atmosphere—plants regrowing after the flood absorb CO2, which is not replaced by the decay of the buried vegetation). Total 14C is also proportionately lowered at this time, but whereas no terrestrial process generates any more 12C, 14C is continually being produced, and at a rate which does not depend on carbon levels (it comes from nitrogen). Therefore, the 14C/12C ratio in plants/animals/the atmosphere before the flood had to be lower than what it is now.

Unless this effect (which is additional to the magnetic field issue just discussed) were corrected for, carbon dating of fossils formed in the flood would give ages much older than the true ages.

Creationist researchers have suggested that dates of 35,000 - 45,000 years should be re-calibrated to the biblical date of the flood.6 Such a re-calibration makes sense of anomalous data from carbon dating—for example, very discordant ‘dates’ for different parts of a frozen musk ox carcass from Alaska and an inordinately slow rate of accumulation of ground sloth dung pellets in the older layers of a cave where the layers were carbon dated.7

Also, volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in 14C. Since the flood was accompanied by much volcanism, fossils formed in the early post-flood period would give radiocarbon ages older than they really are.

In summary, the carbon-14 method, when corrected for the effects of the flood, can give useful results, but needs to be applied carefully. It does not give dates of millions of years and when corrected properly fits well with the biblical flood.
Other radiometric dating methods

There are various other radiometric dating methods used today to give ages of millions or billions of years for rocks. These techniques, unlike carbon dating, mostly use the relative concentrations of parent and daughter products in radioactive decay chains. For example, potassium-40 decays to argon-40; uranium-238 decays to lead-206 via other elements like radium; uranium-235 decays to lead-207; rubidium-87 decays to strontium-87; etc. These techniques are applied to igneous rocks, and are normally seen as giving the time since solidification.

The isotope concentrations can be measured very accurately, but isotope concentrations are not dates. To derive ages from such measurements, unprovable assumptions have to be made such as:

1. The starting conditions are known (for example, that there was no daughter isotope present at the start, or that we know how much was there).
2. Decay rates have always been constant.
3.Systems were closed or isolated so that no parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added.

There are patterns in the isotope data

There is plenty of evidence that the radioisotope dating systems are not the infallible techniques many think, and that they are not measuring millions of years. However, there are still patterns to be explained. For example, deeper rocks often tend to give older ‘ages.’ Creationists agree that the deeper rocks are generally older, but not by millions of years. Geologist John Woodmorappe, in his devastating critique of radioactive dating,8 points out that there are other large-scale trends in the rocks that have nothing to do with radioactive decay.
‘Bad’ dates

When a ‘date’ differs from that expected, researchers readily invent excuses for rejecting the result. The common application of such posterior reasoning shows that radiometric dating has serious problems. Woodmorappe cites hundreds of examples of excuses used to explain ‘bad’ dates.9

For example, researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.10 Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was ‘too old,’ according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today.

A similar story surrounds the dating of the primate skull known as KNM-ER 1470.11 This started with an initial 212 to 230 Ma, which, according to the fossils, was considered way off the mark (humans ‘weren’t around then’). Various other attempts were made to date the volcanic rocks in the area. Over the years an age of 2.9 Ma was settled upon because of the agreement between several different published studies (although the studies involved selection of ‘good’ from ‘bad’ results, just like Australopithecus ramidus, above).

However, preconceived notions about human evolution could not cope with a skull like 1470 being ‘that old.’ A study of pig fossils in Africa readily convinced most anthropologists that the 1470 skull was much younger. After this was widely accepted, further studies of the rocks brought the radiometric age down to about 1.9 Ma—again several studies ‘confirmed’ this date. Such is the dating game.

Are we suggesting that evolutionists are conspiring to massage the data to get what they want? No, not generally. It is simply that all observations must fit the prevailing paradigm. The paradigm, or belief system, of molecules-to-man evolution over eons of time, is so strongly entrenched it is not questioned—it is a ‘fact.’ So every observation must fit this paradigm. Unconsciously, the researchers, who are supposedly ‘objective scientists’ in the eyes of the public, select the observations to fit the basic belief system.

We must remember that the past is not open to the normal processes of experimental science, that is, repeatable experiments in the present. A scientist cannot do experiments on events that happened in the past. Scientists do not measure the age of rocks, they measure isotope concentrations, and these can be measured extremely accurately. However, the ‘age’ is calculated using assumptions about the past that cannot be proven.

We should remember God’s admonition to Job, ‘Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?’ (Job 38:4).

Those involved with unrecorded history gather information in the present and construct stories about the past. The level of proof demanded for such stories seems to be much less than for studies in the empirical sciences, such as physics, chemistry, molecular biology, physiology, etc.

Williams, an expert in the environmental fate of radioactive elements, identified 17 flaws in the isotope dating reported in just three widely respected seminal papers that supposedly established the age of the earth at 4.6 billion years.12 John Woodmorappe has produced an incisive critique of these dating methods.13 He exposes hundreds of myths that have grown up around the techniques. He shows that the few ‘good’ dates left after the ‘bad’ dates are filtered out could easily be explained as fortunate coincidences.
What date would you like?

The forms issued by radioisotope laboratories for submission with samples to be dated commonly ask how old the sample is expected to be. Why? If the techniques were absolutely objective and reliable, such information would not be necessary. Presumably, the laboratories know that anomalous dates are common, so they need some check on whether they have obtained a ‘good’ date.
Testing radiometric dating methods

If the long-age dating techniques were really objective means of finding the ages of rocks, they should work in situations where we know the age. Furthermore, different techniques should consistently agree with one another.
Methods should work reliably on things of known age

There are many examples where the dating methods give ‘dates’ that are wrong for rocks of known age. One example is K-Ar ‘dating’ of five historical andesite lava flows from Mount Nguaruhoe in New Zealand. Although one lava flow occurred in 1949, three in 1954, and one in 1975, the ‘dates’ range from less than 0.27 to 3.5 Ma.14

Again, using hindsight, it is argued that ‘excess’ argon from the magma (molten rock) was retained in the rock when it solidified. The secular scientific literature lists many examples of excess argon causing dates of millions of years in rocks of known historical age.15 This excess appears to have come from the upper mantle, below the earth’s crust. This is consistent with a young world—the argon has had too little time to escape.16 If excess argon can cause exaggerated dates for rocks of known age, then why should we trust the method for rocks of unknown age?

Other techniques, such as the use of isochrons,17 make different assumptions about starting conditions, but there is a growing recognition that such ‘foolproof’ techniques can also give ‘bad’ dates. So data are again selected according to what the researcher already believes about the age of the rock.

Geologist Dr Steve Austin sampled basalt from the base of the Grand Canyon strata and from the lava that spilled over the edge of the canyon. By evolutionary reckoning, the latter should be a billion years younger than the basalt from the bottom. Standard laboratories analyzed the isotopes. The rubidium-strontium isochron technique suggested that the recent lava flow was 270 Ma older than the basalts beneath the Grand Canyon—an impossibility.
Different dating techniques should consistently agree

If the dating methods are an objective and reliable means of determining ages, they should agree. If a chemist were measuring the sugar content of blood, all valid methods for the determination would give the same answer (within the limits of experimental error). However, with radiometric dating, the different techniques often give quite different results.

In the study of the Grand Canyon rocks by Austin, different techniques gave different results.18 Again, all sorts of reasons can be suggested for the ‘bad’ dates, but this is again posterior reasoning. Techniques that give results that can be dismissed just because they don’t agree with what we already believe cannot be considered objective.

In Australia, some wood found in Tertiary basalt was clearly buried in the lava flow that formed the basalt, as can be seen from the charring. The wood was ‘dated’ by radiocarbon (14C) analysis at about 45,000 years old, but the basalt was ‘dated’ by potassium-argon method at 45 million years old!19

Isotope ratios or uraninite crystals from the Koongarra uranium body in the Northern Territory of Australia gave lead-lead isochron ages of 841 Ma, plus or minus 140 Ma.20 This contrasts with an age of 1550-1650 Ma based on other isotope ratios,21 and ages of 275, 61, 0,0, and 0 Ma for thorium/lead (232Th/208Pb) ratios in five uraninite grains. The latter figures are significant because thorium-derived dates should be the more reliable, since thorium is less mobile than the uranium minerals that are the parents of the lead isotopes in lead-lead system.22 The ‘zero’ ages in this case are consistent with the Bible.
More evidence something is wrong—14C in fossils supposedly millions of years old

Fossils older than 100,000 years should have too little 14C to measure, but dating labs consistently find 14C, well above background levels, in fossils supposedly many millions of years old.23,24 For example, no source of coal has been found that lacks 14C, yet this fossil fuel supposedly ranges up to hundreds of millions of years old. Fossils in rocks dated at 1–500 Ma by long-age radioisotope dating methods gave an average radiocarbon ‘age’ of about 50,000 years, much less than the limits of modern carbon dating24 (see pp. 65–69 in The Revised and Expanded Answers Book for why even these radiocarbon ages are inflated). Furthermore, there was no pattern of younger to older in the carbon dates that correlated with the evolutionary/uniformitarian ‘ages’.24

This evidence is consistent with the fossil-bearing rock layers being formed in the year-long global catastrophe of the biblical Flood, as flood geologists since Nicholas Steno (1631–1687) have recognized.

Even Precambrian (‘older than 545 Ma’) graphite, which is not of organic origin, contains 14C above background levels.25 This is consistent with Earth itself being only thousands of years old, as a straightforward reading of the Bible would suggest.
Many physical evidence contradict the ‘billions of years’

Of the methods that have been used to estimate the age of the earth, 90 percent point to an age far less than the billions of years asserted by evolutionists. A few of them follow.

*

Evidence for a rapid formation of geological strata, as in the biblical flood. Some of the evidence are: lack of erosion between rock layers supposedly separated in age by many millions of years; lack of disturbance of rock strata by biological activity (worms, roots, etc.); lack of soil layers; polystrate fossils (which traverse several rock layers vertically—these could not have stood vertically for eons of time while they slowly got buried); thick layers of ‘rock’ bent without fracturing, indicating that the rock was all soft when bent; and more. For more, see books by geologists Morris26 and Austin.27
*

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years—certainly not the 65 Ma since the last dinosaurs lived, according to evolutionists.28
*

The earth’s magnetic field has been decaying so fast that it looks like it is less than 10,000 years old. Rapid reversals during the Flood year and fluctuations shortly after would have caused the field energy to drop even faster.29, 30
*

Radioactive decay releases helium into the atmosphere, but not much is escaping. The total amount in the atmosphere is 1/2000th of that expected if the universe is really billions of years old. This helium originally escaped from rocks. This happens quite fast, yet so much helium is still in some rocks that it has not had time to escape—certainly not billions of years.30
*

A supernova is an explosion of a massive star—the explosion is so bright that it briefly outshines the rest of the galaxy. The supernova remnants (SNRs) should keep expanding for hundreds of thousands of years, according to physical equations. Yet there are no very old, widely expanded (Stage 3) SNRs, and few moderately old (Stage 1) ones in our galaxy, the Milky Way, or in its satellite galaxies, the Magellanic Clouds. This is just what we would expect for ‘young’ galaxies that have not existed long enough for wide expansion.31
*

The moon is slowly receding from the earth at about 4 centimeters (1.5 inches) per year, and this rate would have been greater in the past. But even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth, it would have taken only 1.37 billion years to reach its present distance from the earth. This gives a maximum age of the moon, not the actual age. This is far too young for evolutionists who claim the moon is 4.6 billion years old. It is also much younger than the radiometric ‘dates’ assigned to moon rocks.32
*

Salt is entering the sea much faster than it is escaping. The sea is not nearly salty enough for this to have been happening for billions of years. Even granting generous assumptions to evolutionists, the sea could not be more than 62 Ma years old—far younger than the billions of years believed by the evolutionists. Again, this indicates a maximum age, not the actual age.33

Dr Russell Humphreys gives other processes inconsistent with billions of years in the pamphlet Evidence for a Young World.34

Creationists cannot prove the age of the earth using a particular scientific method, any more than evolutionists can. They realize that all science is tentative because we do not have all the data, especially when dealing with the past. This is true of both creationist and evolutionist scientific arguments—evolutionists have had to abandon many ‘proofs’ for evolution just as creationists have also had to modify their arguments. The atheistic evolutionist W.B. Provine admitted: ‘Most of what I learned of the field [evolutionary biology] in graduate (1964-68) school is either wrong or significantly changed.’ 35

Creationists understand the limitations of dating methods better than evolutionists who claim that they can use processes observed in the present to ‘prove’ that the earth is billions of years old. In reality, all dating methods, including those that point to a young earth, rely on unprovable assumptions.

Creationists ultimately date the earth historically using the chronology of the Bible. This is because they believe that this is an accurate eyewitness account of world history, which bears the evidence within it that it is the Word of God, and therefore totally reliable and error-free.
Then what do the radiometric ‘dates’ mean?

What do the radiometric dates of millions of years mean, if they are not true ages? To answer this question, it is necessary to scrutinize further the experimental results from the various dating techniques, the interpretations made on the basis of the results and the assumptions underlying those interpretations.

The isochron dating technique was thought to be infallible because it supposedly covered the assumptions about starting conditions and closed systems.

Geologist Dr Andrew Snelling worked on dating the Koongarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, primarily using the uranium-thorium-lead (U-Th-Pb) method. He found that even highly weathered soil samples from the area, which are definitely not closed systems, gave apparently valid ‘isochron’ lines with ‘ages’ of up to 1,445 Ma.

Such ‘false isochrons’ are so common that a whole terminology has grown up to describe them, such as apparent isochron, mantle isochron, pseudoisochron, secondary isochron, inherited isochron, erupted isochron, mixing line and mixing isochron. Zheng wrote:

Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr [rubidium-strontium] isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting 87Sr/86Sr. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale. Similar questions can also arise in applying Sm-Nd [samarium-neodymium] and U-Pb [uranium-lead] isochron methods.37

Clearly, there are factors other than age responsible for the straight lines obtained from graphing isotope ratios. Again, the only way to know if an isochron is ‘good’ is by comparing the result with what is already believed.

Another currently popular dating method is the uranium-lead concordia technique. This effectively combines the two uranium-lead decay series into one diagram. Results that lie on the concordia curve have the same age according to the two lead series and are called ‘concordant.’ However, the results from zircons (a type of gemstone), for example, generally lie off the concordia curve—they are discordant. Numerous models, or stories, have been developed to explain such data.38 However, such exercises in story-telling can hardly be considered as objective science that proves an old earth. Again, the stories are evaluated according to their own success in agreeing with the existing long ages belief system.

Andrew Snelling has suggested that fractionation (sorting) of elements in the molten state in the earth’s mantle could be a significant factor in explaining the ratios of isotope concentrations which are interpreted as ages.

As long ago as 1966, Nobel Prize nominee Melvin Cook, professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, pointed out evidence that lead isotope ratios, for example, may involve alteration by important factors other than radioactive decay.39 Cook noted that, in ores from the Katanga mine, for example, there was an abundance of lead-208, a stable isotope, but no Thorium-232 as a source for lead-208. Thorium has a long half-life (decays very slowly) and is not easily moved out of the rock, so if the lead-208 came from thorium decay, some thorium should still be there. The concentrations of lead-206, lead-207, and lead-208 suggest that the lead-208 came about by neutron capture conversion of lead-206 to lead-207 to lead-208. When the isotope concentrations are adjusted for such conversions, the ages calculated are reduced from some 600 Ma to recent. Other ore bodies seemed to show similar evidence. Cook recognized that the current understanding of nuclear physics did not seem to allow for such a conversion under normal conditions, but he presents evidence that such did happen, and even suggests how it could happen.
Anomalies in deep rock crystals

Physicist Dr Robert Gentry has pointed out that the amount of helium and lead in zircons from deep bores is not consistent with an evolutionary age of 1,500 Ma for the granite rocks in which they are found.40 The amount of lead may be consistent with current rates of decay over millions of years, but it would have diffused out of the crystals in that time.

Furthermore, the amount of helium in zircons from hot rock is also much more consistent with a young earth (helium derives from the decay of radioactive elements).

The lead and helium results suggest that rates of radioactive decay may have been much higher in the recent past. Humphreys has suggested that this may have occurred during creation week and the flood. This would make things look much older than they really are when current rates of decay are applied to dating. Whatever caused such elevated rates of decay may also have been responsible for the lead isotope conversions claimed by Cook (above).
Orphan radiohalos

Decaying radioactive particles in solid rock cause spherical zones of damage to the surrounding crystal structure. A speck of radioactive element such as Uranium-238, for example, will leave a sphere of discoloration of characteristically different radius for each element it produces in its decay chain to lead-206.41 Viewed in cross-section with a microscope, these spheres appear as rings called radiohalos. Dr Gentry has researched radiohalos for many years, and published his results in leading scientific journals.42

Some of the intermediate decay products—such as the polonium isotopes—have very short half-lives (they decay quickly). For example, 218Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings formed by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies, but it cannot derive a from a uranium speck in the solid rock, otherwise there would be a uranium halo. Either the polonium was created (primordial, not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changes in decay rates in the past.

Gentry has addressed all attempts to criticize his work.43 There have been many attempts, because the orphan halos speak of conditions in the past, either at creation or after, perhaps even during the flood, which do not fit with the uniformitarian view of the past, which is the basis of the radiometric dating systems. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could be a key also to understanding radiometric dating.44
Conclusion

There are many lines of evidence that the radiometric dates are not the objective evidence for an old earth that many claim, and that the world is really only thousands of years old. We don't have all the answers, but we do have the sure testimony of the Word of God to the true history of the world.

Answer 2

It may be helpful to understand that for SOME Christians there is no problem with creation AND evolution.

In this belief system God set everything in motion and evolution took over as a natural progression.

Scripture tells us that a day with the Lord is as a thousand years. Just do the math. One year of man is 2,555 years of God.

I do not mean to sound tedious here, but most people who completely deny evolution are fundamentalists, be they Catholic, Baptist, Islamic or whatever; believing absolutely that every word of Scripture or Holy Teaching is to taken literally.

That is until it comes to certain other matters like stoning your children for disobeying, cutting off your own hand or plucking out your own eye, etc., etc., etc.

Answer 3

Colossians 1:16
"For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him."

So if there are similarities, that is simply PHYSICAL EVIDENCE of the CREATOR. The same creator created them, so they seem similar.

Mankind created cars, but mankind also created trucks. They have much in common. But trucks in no way evolved from cars. They had the same creator.

As yet, no order of creature becomes a different order of creature, although creatures adapt or fail to adapt to their environment. Some creatures are extict, others are successful.

So if something is similar, is there any way for that to be asserted to the conclusion of "evolved?" Of course not.

Just as any artist creates a work, and then another, that similarities can be found between them, this does not ever imply evolution.

I'm not closed-minded. I will accept evidence of evolution if it is found, and in no way will it conflict with my understanding.

The evidence required is the observance of one species begetting another species. That is evolution. It is required. It is observable. To accept evolution without the single and only basis for evolution is to take a leap of faith.

To find something old, and see that it is similar but not the same as something new, and to assert that as proof of evolution is not science.

I believe species adapt. I believe in creation and that creation has been proved, because you and I are here, and that is hard to deny. I believe that evolution is possible, may have been part of the process of creation or maybe not, but that it has not been proved yet, and therefore remains a theory and to believe it at this point is a matter of faith.

Answer 4

In general science can never prove anything, people put forward hypotheses based upon observation such as evolution and then collect evidence and perform experiments to test the hypothesis. A well designed experiment can disprove a hypothesis but never prove one. A hypothesis that passes many experimental tests and which is not superceded by a better hypothesis is gradually accepted as provisionally true, but not absolute truth. The faith involved in science is that in the value of scientific method in discerning truth, there is no objective way to prove it works just subjective experience as to the quality of life and understanidng of the universe it has brought. Some hypotheses are not falsifiable, ie there isn't a way to disprove them so we can either accept them or not, such as god. In the cases of supernatural beings who aren't subject to the laws of the physical universe it can always be argued that they changed rules so the experiment is invalid, in the early 1800's some geologists argued that god had planted fossils during creation to confound our faith, science cannot disprove this. God could have designed a universe that appears to operate independently of him as a trick to test us. As for the quasi-thermodynamic argument about systems going from more complex to less complex, this disingenuous, as long as the global(universal) entropic effect is correct the development of locally more organized systems is clearly possible and has been observed in many inorganic as well as biological systems.

Answer 5

They are either humans or monkeys. Not some distant cousin or proof of macro evolution. Perhaps micro evolution within a species. Like the difference in nordic races and african races. There has yet to be a single piece of evidence of an in between evolutionary fossil. Never. Do some more research.

Answer 6

They paste it over, and ignore it, or try to get it to blend with creationist theory, which of course doesn't work. Religion and evolution are incompatible. And when you challenge them about such things as Judgment day, and suggest a scenario ("Can't you just see it, god and jesus, walking down on a ray of light to earth from the skies, bodies floating up to heaven to sit on a cloud, the bad people sent to hell where the devil is burning them all up in his red suit as he holds a pitchfork wagging his tail with an arrow on the end....... god and jesus coming by to pat every one on the head, angels fluttering around... yadayadayada...) they just have a cow, and belch forth the usual pap of giving themselves to the lord. It makes no sense, but they are happy, ---- but then one can't expect too much of people with room temperature IQ, can one????

Even overheard a guy discussing with his friend, "Now, what would Adam do in this situation?...." go figure

Answer 7

not all Christians believe in creationism.

I believe the argument is pretty lame... they say they were either the "giants" described in the bible as half human half angel... known as nephilim i believe. or they were demonic... or... they were mishapen humans... etc... they also argue that since there isnt hundred of these remains, it proves that there were only very few of these special (and often evil) beings.

a.k.a.... lame... however, in their defense.... the whole point of religion is faith... faith by definition does not seek proof... otherwise it would not be faith. Thus, they need not, and SHOULD not seek proof.... religion and science. you cant explain one with the other.

Answer 8

I am a Christian.

I account for this by saying that there is scientific/skeletal evidence of creatures named Neanderthals, Homo erectus, Cro-Magnon, and so forth, that walked upright, made tools, made art, and performed burials, among other things.

Answer 9

you say they are human cousins and present a skull that looks different but what makes you think they weren't just people like you and me if they were using tools and making art? look at the people today who live in separate areas like rain forest they live more primitive life styles but that does not make them missing links and in some parts of Asia the people are about 4 feet tall on average they are not missing links because they look different so were is this proof ?

Answer 10

Is this the same type of proof that scientists held for centuries that the Earth was flat, while Scripture had declared it to be "an orb"? Is this the same type of proof that doctors used leeches to cure common ailments? Is this the same type of proof that said only a century ago that when confronted with the new invention of the automobile said that man could not travel faster than 30 mph, lest he die?

When it comes to science, it takes decades, even centuries, for "truths" to become actually true. When it comes to faith, it only takes a decision to believe.

Answer 11

Francis Bacon argued that it is wise not to confound the Book of Nature with the Book of God.