C.L.

Prime

For he who hath an ear....

Look around. During the day, look around at the trees, and the flowers, and the birds, and the
other animals; look at the sun in the blue sky as it gives its light to us. At night, look at the moon, and
all the stars in the darkness that is the vast expanse of space. Everything you see is here for our
amazement, to look at in awe and wonder just who could be responsible for it all. For millennia,
humans have looked up at the sky and seen a creative force looking back – a force that, so long ago,
created the universe and everything in it, and created the earth and everything on it. What a
powerful force this must be.

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth (Genesis 1:1, KJV).

This is a firm opening statement, and is one that forms the basis for an entire section of the
Christian dogma known as Creationism. Belief in Creationism is, first and foremost, a belief in the
all-powerful nature of God. However, Creationism faces a significant threat from modern science, in
the form of two revolutionary hypotheses: the Big Bang Theory and the Theory of Evolution.
Together, these have worked to undermine the reverence of our Almighty Creator, all but destroying
the very foundation of Christian doctrine. But, now, it is time for sound Biblical principles to retake
the ground they’ve lost to invasive theories and arrogant sciences.
The entire first chapter of Genesis details the Creation account:

In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and
void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the
waters. And God said, Let there be light: and there was light. And God saw the light, that it was
good: and God divided the light from the darkness. And God called the light Day, and the darkness
he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters
from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the
firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. And God called the
firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the
dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the
waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass,
the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon
the earth: and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind,
and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And the evening and the morning were the third day.
And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven to divide the day from the night;
and let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years: And let them be for lights in the
firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth: and it was so. And God made two great lights;
the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. And
God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, And to rule over the day
and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. And
the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl
that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and
every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and
every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be
fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the
evening and the morning were the fifth day.
And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping
thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after
his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and
God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let
them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and
over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man
in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and
subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every
living thing that moveth upon the earth. And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding
seed; to you it shall be for meat. And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to
every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for
meat: and it was so. And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And
the evening and the morning were the sixth day (Genesis 1, KJV).

Big Bang physics and Evolutionary biology deny this account, instead opting for miracles and
impossibly slim chances. Where science offers only flawed logic and questionable proofs, the
inspired Word of God steps up to offer truth and reason.

At least, this is what proponents of Literal Interpretation, Young Earth Creationism, and
Intelligent Design (call them what you will, they’re all just different sheep suits worn by the same
wolf) claim. Now, let’s see what the facts say....

 FIRST CAUSE

Abiogenesis is the act of producing organisms from inorganic matter. Throughout the history of
biology – in fact, from the time of Aristotle – it has been assumed that life is capable of spontaneous
generation. This was “evidenced” especially by the appearance of maggots in food without there
being any apparent outside source. For some time, the belief that inanimate objects could
spontaneously produce life was prevalent. Then, in 1668, biologist Francesco Redi performed an
experiment in which he showed that, in cases where meat was completely isolated from the external
environment (and, therefore, from flies that could lay eggs in the meat, which would then mature to
become the maggots observed in other conditions), no maggots appeared. This was the first step in
disproving the theory of spontaneous generation.
Today exists what is known as the Law of Biogenesis: that life is borne of life, and no inorganic
matter can lead to the creation of life. However, one extension of spontaneous generation still exists,
in the form of modern abiogenesis. This theory is required in order to explain the initial origin of life,
and, at least at first, appears to be a contradiction. Now, we could leave it here, like believers in the
divine Creation of life often do before they then make the claim that the very laws of science prove
that there must be a God who caused the first life on Earth to form. Or we can go deeper.
Let’s try that last one.
How did biologists make the leap from “no maggots in the bread” to “no life from inanimate
objects, ever”? Simple. They didn’t. The Law of Biogenesis stated above is only part of the story; it is,
in actuality, just a statement of observed phenomenon under current conditions. Do we see living
things form from non-living things today? No, of course we don’t. But this “law” in no way governs
the extraordinary conditions present during the very earliest stages of the formation of our planet.1
This is where abiogenesis comes in.
Where did the first life on Earth come from? We know how life is formed now, but how did it all
start, back before there were elephants to produce more elephants, and beavers to produce more
beavers, and dogs to produce more dogs? What was the first cause? This is, admittedly, a difficult
question to answer, however that is not because there is no answer. Rather, it is due to the limit of
our understanding of early biochemistry. The process is clear: simple molecules to complex
molecules to simple life to complex life. The mechanism for this process is what is difficult to
determine. It should also be noted that, strictly speaking, even considering the Law of Biogenesis as
stated above, life in the beginning did not arise from non-living things. Abiogenesis, instead, involves
what may be considered more as an intermediary – that is, complex molecules that are not quite
alive, yet exhibit qualities of life, such as performing specialized functions. In this way, life did not
come from inorganic matter, rather it arose more directly from matter sitting on the line between
inanimate molecule and animate organism.
The occurrence of abiogenesis once over the history of the earth begs the question, why doesn’t it
still occur? Why, today, are we not being bombarded with life newly-formed from inorganic
materials? This can be answered simply: conditions suitable for abiogenesis to occur naturally may
not exist anymore, and, even if they did, the chances of such an event being observed are remarkably
remote (approximately 1 in a trillion, even under the most exemplary conditions).2
At best, Creationism and Evolution are on equal ground. For now.

 THE FOSSIL RECORD

Where are the transitional fossils (the so-called “missing links”)? How were the bones of dead
animals buried before they were displaced or destroyed by any of a number of natural processes?
How can we trust the exceptionally old ages for fossils, not to mention rocks, given by “scientific”
dating methods?
These are three key issues habitually raised by advocates of Creationism. On the surface, they
appear to be rational, commonsense questions. Let’s see about that.
 The first question: where are the missing links? This question is often raised when speaking of
those fossils that science attributes to the earliest humans, but it is also used of all other species
throughout the fossil record. If species B evolved from species A, then, they argue, we should be
finding fossils of a species AB, showing the transition. However, while this seems like a logical
expectation, it is, in reality, no more than veiled (and inexorable) propaganda. First of all, even if
fossils of a transitional species AB were found, then the argument would just shift: where are the
fossils showing the transition from species A to AB? and, while, we’re at it, how about from AB to B?
This reasoning leads to an argument that never ends, so let’s stop it here. If it can never be satisfied,
then it’s pointless to even try. And, second of all, the idea, itself, that no transitional fossils exist is an
erroneous one. In fact, many exist – so much so that, in numerous instances, scientists can sit back
and “watch” the evolution from one species to another as it occurs. We may not be around long
enough to witness macroevolution with our own eyes in real-time, but we can definitely watch it
happen through the fossil record. Known transitional fossils include those between species, genera,
families, orders, and classes of early humans, species of coiled oysters, the genera Globigerinoides and
Orbulina, and the plant Runcaria and later seeding plants.3 Even though the Creationist argument is a
never-ending one, it turns out it is a false one from the start.
The second question: how did bones lay around long enough to become fossilized? The process of
fossilization occurs over a relatively short period of time, especially under the right conditions. In
order to become fossilized, the bones of an animal, or the animal itself, must be buried by dirt and
sediment. Yet we don’t see this occurring today, while this obviously happened to many animals in
the past; only a catastrophic event, such as the Great Flood of Genesis, could have laid down enough
sediment in a short enough amount of time to entomb the animals and leave their remains to fossilize
for us to find. Or so the story goes. The truth is, it does not take a global catastrophe to produce
fossils; it just takes a local one. Moreover, it does occur today, and even humans have been the
victims of fossilization in numerous devastating events in recorded history. Take Pompeii for
example. On August 24, AD 79, this city in Italy was buried under dozens of feet of volcanic ash from
the eruption of nearby Mt. Vesuvius, burying the inhabitants along with it. Now, almost 2000 years
later, we find their fossilized remains in the solidified ash. Modern humans are obviously subject to
the forces of nature just as much as the dinosaurs and all other animals. Evolution does not say that,
by some stroke of luck, bones hung around long enough to be gradually buried and fossilized.
Instead, common sense realizes that a catastrophic event of some sort is generally the culprit,
especially as far as intact skeletons and mass graveyards are concerned. At this stage, Creationists
make the jump from “catastrophic event” to “Great Flood”, and shrink the entire fossil record down
to a period of under a year.4 But, while fossilization does not necessitate millions of years, evolution
does, and, as shown above, evolution is exactly what the fossil record represents. (Also, for a
discussion of the apparent fossilized cowboy leg found in Texas, see Glen J. Kuban’s “The Limestone
Cowboy: An alleged fossilized leg in a cowboy boot” at http://paleo.cc/paluxy/boot.htm.)
The third question: how can we trust the ancient dates that science gives? Consider the following
from ChristianAnswers.net:

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.5

This is a key Creationist claim. The entire Young Earth argument depends on there being some
error in the ages given by numerous dating methods. For example, ChristianAnswers.net claims:
 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.
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. 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 [sic] is not possible.

The final statement, however, is incorrect. Radiocarbon (Carbon-14) dating is calibrated with high
accuracy, adding no more than 1% error to that of the date, itself, over the past 26,000 years.6
Recently, reliable calibrations have been extended back to 45,000 years ago through the study of
speleothems in the Bahamas.7 Despite what Creationists claim, radiocarbon dating is a very reliable
dating method for tens of thousands of years into the past. Nevertheless, 45,000 years does not quite
get us to the 4.5 billion years maintained for the age of the earth. Rocks are dated by other techniques,
such as numerous radiometric dating methods (uranium-lead, samarium-neodymium, potassium-
argon, rubidium-strontium, and uranium-thorium dating). These use the known decay rates of
certain elements in the rocks to determine when they were formed. The oldest rocks readily available
on Earth are just shy of 4 billion years, but there are places where older rocks exist. Moon rocks, for
example, have been relatively undisturbed over their history, and serve as very useful in dating our
region of the Solar System. Meteorites also give us very accurate dates for the formation of the Solar
System. Of course, the earth formed along with the rest of the Solar System, so moon rocks and
meteorites give a very accurate estimate for the age of the earth: currently, 4.54 billion years.8,9

If it is not enough that modern science can fully account for the fossil record, we can also show
that Young Earth Creationism falls tragically short in that area. Creationism insists that the entire
fossil record was laid down during the Great Flood (recorded in Genesis 6-9). So, obviously, while
God was unleashing ridiculous amounts of water from secret underground reservoirs, He was also
busy making sure that, when the animals were buried to be fossilized, they were laid down in very
specific order. Three theories are put forward, then, to account for the apparent hierarchical ordering
of the fossil record: hydraulic sorting, ecological zoning, and differential mobility.

1. Hydraulic sorting asserts that organisms would be sorted by how well their bodies floated in
the flood waters, with the assumption being that more complex animals would be less
streamlined, thus floating easier and depositing later (higher) in the fossil record.
2. Ecological zoning claims that organisms would be buried in order of when the flood waters
reached them – marine animals first, land animals in between, and airborne animals last when
they succumbed to exhaustion and drowned.
 3. Finally, differential mobility argues that animals would have been buried in relation to how
well they were able to escape the rising waters.

While these may seem like sensible explanations at first glance, it becomes obvious, upon closer
examination, that all of these fail in their attempts to explain the fossil record we observe today.
Without going into details of individual cases, I present one case which refutes all three. According to
Lenny Flank (1995):

Sea turtles [...] violate all three of the presumed “sorting mechanisms”; they live in the
open deep sea, but are found high in the sediment layer, above such terrestrial animals as
amphibians and dinosaurs; they are big and heavy and sink rapidly upon death, but are
found in the upper layers, above such lighter organisms as jellyfish and seaweeds; and
they are clumsy and slow on land, but apparently managed to run to the higher elevations
before the Flood engulfed them (since they are found in the same sediment layers as such
speedy animals as saber-toothed tigers and horses).

Flank also states, “Then there are the plants. How did the oak and willow trees manage to get to
the top of the sediment layer along with all those mobile mammals? Did the trees run for the high
ground too? [...] [N]one of the creationist theories can explain how plants became sorted into an
apparent evolutionary sequence.”10
It takes a special theory to be this wrong and yet still be believed by so many.

 FINAL NAIL IN THE 6000-YEAR-OLD COFFIN

As if an old Earth wasn’t enough, the final nail in the coffin for Young Earth Creationism is the age
of the universe, itself. The first issue arises with the distances to even the nearest stars. Take, for
example, Cepheid variables. These are stars which vary in their luminosity regularly, and thus
predictably, over time. A century ago, astronomer Henrietta Leavitt discovered the relationship
between a Cepheid’s period and its absolute (true) luminosity. One Cepheid in particular has a
period of 4.76 days. This same star also has an average apparent magnitude (it’s brightness as
observed from earth) of 15.56. From its 4.76-day period, its absolute magnitude can then be
calculated, and turns out to be approximately -3.6. The distance to the star can then be calculated
using the equation

where m = apparent magnitude and M = absolute magnitude. Plugging in the values above, this
gives d = 104.832 ≈ 67,920 parsecs ≈ 221,530 light-years. Therefore, this particular Cepheid is over
200,000 light-years away. A light-year is the distance light travels in a year. Since the light is reaching
us, and the Cepheid definitely was not emitting light before it formed, then we know the light has
been travelling for over 200,000 years to get to us.11
The star in the example above is just one of many. Some are in other galaxies, million of light-years
away, and the light coming from them has been travelling for millions of years to get to us. Yet,
somehow, Creationists continue to insist that the universe is only 6000 years old. Using the above
method, and others, to determine distances out to the farthest reaches of space, combined with the
observed rate of expansion of that space (known as Hubble’s constant), we know that the universe is,
in fact, nearly 14 billion years old. This isn’t based on the words of an ancient text, nor is it even
based on theory – this is plain and simple observation.

Even the order of events during the Creation week fails to align with basic observation. Genesis
boasts a tale featuring an earth existing before stars, light forming somewhere in between, plants
existing without the sun, and birds forming before land animals. All of this defies logic, let alone
what is observed.
What Creationists fail to notice, though, is that even Genesis supports evolution. Consider the
following verses:

And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth... (Genesis 1:11, KJV).

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl
that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven (Genesis 1:20, KJV).

And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping
thing, and beast of the earth after his kind... (Genesis 1:24, KJV).

In each of these three verses, God tells the earth (or the ocean, in the case of verse 20) to produce
what He wishes to create. It is His creation, but it is the earth’s responsibility. Likewise, the Theory of
Evolution does not (or, at least, it should not) preclude the possibility of God-guided processes.
Science can no more disprove the existence of God than Creationists can prove that God created the
universe and everything in it in six days. If we read Genesis for what it is, we find that God works
nature, He does not work magic.

 REFUTATIONS

1) T-rex was a vegan.12

This is one of the more baseless Creationist claims, and is possibly the easiest to refute. The
purpose for this claim is to show that animals alive prior to the flood were herbivorous, just as God
intended. But look at any image of a Tyrannosaurus skull and you will notice a maw full of large,
sharp teeth, just like those found in carnivores today. Also, tyrannosaurs were built for a meat-eating
life-style, showing vast differences (especially in the digestive tract) between them and herbivores.
And, if that is not enough, the bones of other dinosaurs have also been unearthed with Tyrannosaurus
(or a close relative’s) teeth marks, and, in some instances, include those teeth still embedded.13
Though they may have ingested plants, it is clear that T-rex, and all other dinosaurs of the sort, ate
meat, whether they scavenged it or caught it themselves.

2) Earth’s magnetic field is decaying at a rate much too rapid for its supposed old age.12

Creationists speak of the earth’s magnetic field as if it is some sort of radioactive element, with a
fixed decay rate and measurable half-life. This presumption is ridiculous; we know that, throughout
history, the earth’s magnetic field has varied greatly, even reversing polarity on many occasions. Any
decay of the field we observe now is no indication of its decay rate, and how strong it was, in the
past.14,15
 The study of variations in the earth’s magnetic field throughout history is not a guessing game. As
Wikipedia states in the article Earth’s Magnetic Field:

Magnetometers detect minute deviations in the Earth's magnetic field caused by iron
artifacts, kilns, some types of stone structures, and even ditches and middens in
archaeological geophysics. Using magnetic instruments adapted from airborne magnetic
anomaly detectors developed during World War II to detect submarines, the magnetic
variations across the ocean floor have been mapped. The basalt — the iron-rich, volcanic
rock making up the ocean floor — contains a strongly magnetic mineral (magnetite) and
can locally distort compass readings. The distortion was recognized by Icelandic mariners
as early as the late 18th century. More important, because the presence of magnetite gives
the basalt measurable magnetic properties, these magnetic variations have provided
another means to study the deep ocean floor. When newly formed rock cools, such
magnetic materials record the Earth's magnetic field.

3) The Bible teaches a Global Flood, and there is geologic evidence for it.12

As described earlier, the fossil record and the associated geologic column (the layers of earth
containing, among other things, the fossil record) in no way support a sudden, global, cataclysmic
flood. In fact, the evidence sides against it, favouring, instead, a slow progression of evolution and
natural selection. But, even if the earth is billions of years old, could a global flood still have occurred
a mere four thousand years ago as described in Genesis? So far, no evidence for anything like this has
been found. Historically, several geologists and archaeologists have even spent their careers
searching for the elusive flood in the geologic column, but, so far, nothing definitive has been found.
Of course, plenty of evidence exists to the contrary.16
What are we to make, then, of the Biblical account? While the purpose of this work is not to fit the
history of the Bible to the history that is observed, this is a matter that can be easily resolved given a
little knowledge of the context of the original Genesis story. For instance, throughout the narrative, it
is stated that the waters are upon “the earth”. The original Hebrew word in this case is ‘erets, a word
that is used 2504 times, in 2191 verses, throughout the Old Testament, and in 252 verses in Genesis
alone. This word does not strictly speak of the planet earth, but also means, simply, land – and
“land” is how it is translated more than 60% of the time. Even when God says, “For yet seven days,
and I will cause it to rain upon the earth forty days and forty nights; and every living substance that I
have made will I destroy from off the face of the earth” [emphasis mine] (Genesis 7:4, KJV), he is
speaking to Noah. The region of the Middle East is the only “earth” (land) Noah knows. Therefore, it
is entirely probable that the flood subsequently described is of a more local nature, perhaps affecting
only the Mesopotamian basin. (For a possible cause, see the following news item: “Meteors clue to end
of Middle East civilisations,” available at http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/601395/posts.)

4) The human population today is too small to be the product of millions of years of reproduction.12

Claims such as this make good use of contrived mathematics to arrive at a desired result.
Creationists claim that, by applying historical annual growth rates to an initial human population of
just 2 living around 6000 years ago, we arrive at the current global population. First of all, while the
math is sound (usually), the reasoning is far from it. Saying that population growth has been
faithfully exponential throughout history is an incredible assumption. The growth of the human
population is not defined by any mathematical equation. Many factors affect population growth, and,
throughout history, the population has grown, levelled out, fallen, grown, levelled out, and grown
again. Besides, the current human population is not a result of millions of years of reproduction.
People alive today are direct descendants of the first evolved Homo sapiens sapiens, from around
130,000 years ago. These first modern humans had little time to devote to the mass production of
offspring while they were busy spreading out around the globe in search of food, encountering many
population-diminishing hazards along the way.
For a more detailed discussion, and refutation, of the calculations involved in the Creationists’
claims, see Lenny Flank’s page on the topic, “Population Rates and the Age of the Earth,” available at
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/populate.htm.

5) Radiohalos prove that rocks (and, therefore, the earth) were formed instantaneously.12,17

Uranium-238 is a radioactive element that decays indirectly into Uranium-234; it has a half-life of
4.5 billion years (meaning, for any given sample of U-238, half of it will decay in that amount of
time). Uranium-234 decays into Thorium-230; it has a half-life of 245,000 years. Thorium-230 decays
into Radium-226; it has a half-life of 76,000 years. Radium-226 decays into Radon-222; it has a half-life
of 1600 years. Radon-222 decays into Polonium-218; it has a half-life of nearly 4 days. Polonium-218
decays indirectly into Polonium-214; it has a half-life of about 3 minutes. Polonium-214 decays
indirectly into Polonium-210; it has a half-life of 160 millionths of a second. Polonium-210 decays
indirectly into Lead-206; it has a half-life of 138 days. Lead-206 is a stable element and does not decay
further.18 Now, take granite (or any other igneous rock) for example, which can contain certain
minerals. When Uranium intrudes into those minerals and decays, the radiation given off by that
decay produces a shell of damage (seen as discolouration) inside the rock. The same thing happens
with each consecutive element’s decay, leaving several layers of damage in the form of successive
shells of discolouration. These shells are called radiohalos.
The process does not have to begin with Uranium-238, however. Some rocks have been found
which seem to feature decay initiated by Polonium-218. As stated above, Po-218 has a half-life of
about 3 minutes. Now, granite is thought, by mainstream geologists, to form from molten rock
gradually hardening over time. If Po-218 is the decay initiator, however, then this appears to indicate
that the rock must have hardened within a very short period of time, perhaps even only a few
minutes. This, then, is taken by Creationists as proof of the rock having been formed near-
instantaneously by God.
Of the elements in the decay sequence of Uranium-238, Radon-222 is the only gas. Being a gas,
Radon then has the ability to migrate through the rock, depositing its byproduct, Polonium-218,
elsewhere in the rock to produce its own series of radiohalos without any indication of the presence
of Uranium or any of the other preceding elements in the decay sequence. Still, this should leave the
halos from the initial Uranium-Radon decays sitting elsewhere in the rock – which, luckily, is exactly
the case.19 There is no evidence for instantaneous creation here, just the ability of a gas to move
through rock.

6) Radiometric dating has proven unreliable, giving dates of millions of years for events known to
have occurred only recently.5

ChristianAnswers.net asserts the following:

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.

This is not a fault of the dating method, rather it points out either flaws in the experimenter’s
sampling or a misunderstanding, on the part of the detractor, of just what is being dated. Below is the
TalkOrigins Archive’s response to this assertion as it was put forward by Creationist Henry Morris:

1. Argon may be incorporated with potassium at [the] time of formation. This is a real
problem, but it is easily overcome either by careful selection of the material being
dated or by using 40Ar/39Ar dating instead of K-Ar dating.

In the case of the claim about recent lava yielding dates that are millions to billions of
years old, H. M. Morris (1974) misstated the facts concerning these "anomalous" dates
as published in Funkhouser and Naughton (1968). The main misstatements of fact by
Morris are as follows:

 It was not the lava that was dated, but inclusions of olivine, called "xenoliths",
present within the lava. These gave anomalously old age because they
contained excess argon that the enclosing lava did not.
 Morris failed to mention that the lava matrix without the xenoliths was dated
and found to be too young to date using potassium-argon. (Funkhouser and
Naughton [1968, 4603], stated that the matrix rock "can be said to contain no
measurable radiogenic argon within experimental error.") This is consistent
with the recent age of lavas and the state of the art of K-Ar dating at that time.
The presence of excess argon was only a problem for the xenoliths but not for
the lava containing them.

Morris cited other examples of anomalous dates produced by excess argon and falsely
claimed that it is a universal problem for K-Ar dating. The problem is not universal, as
the majority of minerals and rocks dated by K-Ar do not contain the excess argon. Where
excess argon is a problem, accurate, reliable dates typically can be obtained
using 40Ar/39Ar dating, as demonstrated by Dalrymple (1969) and Renne et al. (1997) and
discussed by Dalyrmple (2000).

2. Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the K-
Ar dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K-Ar dating has been largely
replaced by the related 40Ar/39Ar dating technique.

7) Man-made artefacts have been found throughout the fossil record.12

Carl Baugh is this statement’s originator – a statement that is readily refuted by scientists and
Creationists alike. Baugh is a deceiver among the deceived. He claimed to find human tracks in rock
also containing dinosaur tracks, with the two sets sometimes even walking through each other. This
claim has been falsified.20 He claimed to find a 300-year-old miner’s hammer in rock millions of years
old, insisting that it violated all known rock formation methods. This claim has been falsified.21
Baugh also claimed to find human bones in Cretaceous strata. As it turns out, he bought the bones,
which were really no more than 300 years old, for $10,000 and then lied about their discovery.22
 While on the subject of Baugh’s supposed “mantracks,” it may be worth while to mention
prehistoric cave paintings purported to depict dinosaurs at a time when they (according to science)
never existed. These can probably be attributed to history’s very first palaeontologists, as their
attempts to understand the fossils they were no doubt uncovering.23

8) If the earth were billions of years old, there would be more Helium-4 in the atmosphere. In fact,
working back in time with the current rate of Helium-4 accumulation gives an age for the earth of
under 10,000 years.12

As with all other mathematical projections back in time made by Creationists, this one assumes
that the current rate has been the “always” rate. Another thing that this fails to take into account is
the escape of He-4 from the atmosphere. A major cause of escaping Helium is a weak magnetic field,
which has occurred during the numerous reversals of the earth’s magnetic field throughout history (a
phenomenon discussed above, in Claim 2). Considering the draining of Helium-4 during these
polarity reversals, modern levels of the element in the atmosphere are fully accounted for.24

 SWINGING FROM THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE

The history of Christianity is awash with fables and fairy tales. Contrary to former popular
opinion, our flat Earth is not the centre of the universe. It is not even the centre of the Solar System.
And, on top of it all, it is not even really very flat – in fact, Earth is quite round. Still, borne of Biblical
interpretations of the time, the Church once held that the earth was a disc forever sitting at the centre
of the universe, with the stars and other planets suspended within a Celestial sphere just beyond the
clouds. Today, aside from the Flat Earth Society and other minor Dark Age throwbacks, these ideas
have been rejected and falsified. Scripture may be inspired by God, but our interpretations of it are
obviously not. Today is no different. People would rather hold on to outdated Biblical interpretations
than move forward with the progression of scientific knowledge.
Often, the comment is made, “I don’t know about you, but I didn’t come from monkeys.” Not only
is this irrational, but it is also ignorant of the facts of evolution. Modern man did not evolve from
monkeys; monkeys and modern man are at the same evolutionary level. The only relation is a
common primate ancestor a couple million years ago, leading to the genetic resemblance between the
two seen today. Moreover, saying “I didn’t evolve from monkeys” does not make it so. (Even
ignoring the “monkey” misnomer) what if we did evolve from monkeys? Whether we like the idea or
not, what if it is the reality of what happened? Denying it does nothing to change history. If monkeys
had been ancestral to modern humans, consider this: monkeys eat, mate, play, and sleep; humans
wage wars, murder, lust, rape, and steal. Would our being descended from monkeys really be such a
disgrace?

 CONCLUSION

Creationism is absurdity at its finest. Not only does it deserve no place in our schools, but it also
deserves no place in our Bibles. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Then there must be something
about the Creation account that we are all missing, because the current understanding of the Genesis
narrative is incompatible with the truths that science has uncovered. Here, I have no interest in
remoulding Genesis to fit the facts. The purpose of this is not to make the Creation story work, but,
rather, to eliminate the hold that Creationism has on so many minds. To deny Creationism is not to
deny Creation; to deny evolution is to deny the truth.
REFERENCES

1. Isaac, M.; “CB000: Law of Biogenesis” [Internet]. Houston, TX: TalkOrigins Archive; 2000 April 24.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html>

2. Locke, G. In: “How Common Is Abiogenesis?” [Redshift Media]; 2009, [Cited 2009 March 13]. 1.
<http://www.asktheatheists.com/questions/226>

3. Isaac, M.; “CC200: Transitional Fossils” [Internet]. Houston, TX: TalkOrigins Archive; 2006 November 5.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html>

4. Heath, C.; “The Great Flood of God: Noah’s Ark” [Internet]. Queensland, Australia: Bible Insight; [Accessed 2009
March 14]. <http://www.bibleinsight.com/floodp1.html>

5. Ham, K., & Sarfati, J., & Wieland, C.; “How accurate are Carbon-14 and other radioactive dating methods?” [Internet].
Gilbert, AZ: Eden Communications; 2000. <http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html>

6. Reimer, P. J., et al. (2004); "INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0–26 Cal Kyr BP". Radiocarbon 46 (3):
1029–1058.

7. Jull, A. J. T., et al; “New frontiers in dating of geological, paleoclimatic and anthropological applications using
accelerator mass spectrometric measurements of 14C and 10Be in diverse samples” [Internet]. 2004. 2009 March 14.
doi:10.1016/j.gloplacha.2004.01.014

8. Sherlock, S.; “How Old is the Earth?” [Internet]. MadSci Network (Washington University Medical School); 1997.
<http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/1997-03/858867134.Es.r.html>

9. U.S. Geological Survey; “Age of the Earth” [Internet]. 1997. (Last updated 2007 July 9).
<http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html>

10. Flank, L.; “Can Noah’s Flood Account for the Geologic and Fossil Record?” [Internet]. 1995.
<http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/hangar/2437/sorting.htm >

11. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation; “Cepheid Variable Stars & Distance Determination”
[Internet]. Australia: 2004. <http://outreach.atnf.csiro.au/education/senior/astrophysics/variable_cepheids.html>

12. Nicholas; “Evidence for Creation” [Internet]. Presents of God ministry; 2009.
<http://www.remnantofgod.org/creation.htm>

13. Hutchinson, J., & Smith, D.; “The Tyrannosauridae” [Internet]. University of California; 2009.
<http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/saurischia/tyrannosauridae.html>

14. Isaac, M.; “CD701: Decay of Earth’s Magnetic Field” [Internet]. Houston, TX: TalkOrigins Archive; 2006 May 12.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB000.html>

15. “What causes the earth’s magnetic field?” [Internet]. Lansing State Journal; 1996 March 20.
<http://www.pa.msu.edu/sci_theatre/ask_st/011796.html>

16. Morton, G.R.; “Difunta Group Argues Against a Global Flood.” 2003. <http://home.entouch.net/dmd/difunta.htm>

17. Earth Science Associates; “Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth’s Instant Creation” [Internet]. Knoxville,
TN: 2005. <http://www.halos.com/>

18. CCNR; “What are the Radioactive Byproducts of Depleted Uranium (Uranium-238)” [Internet]. Canadian Coalition
for Nuclear Responsibility. <http://www.ccnr.org/decay_U238.html>

19. Wakefield, J. R. (1988), "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery'", Journal of Geological Education 36: 161–175.
20. Cole, J.R., et al; “Mantracks? The Fossils Say No!” Creation/Evolution Volume 5 Issue 15 (1985). 2009 March 15.
<http://ncseweb.org/cej/5/1/mantracks-fossils-say-no>

21. Cole, J.R.; “If I Had a Hammer” Creation/Evolution Volume 5 Issue 15 (1985). 2009 March 15.
<http://ncseweb.org/cej/5/1/if-i-had-hammer>

22. Hastings, R.J.; “Tracking Those Incredulous Creationists” Creation/Evolution Volume 5 Issue 15 (1985). 2009 March
15. <http://ncseweb.org/cej/5/1/tracking-those-incredible-creationists>

23. Neyman, G.; “Palaeontology Pioneers” [Internet]. Answers in Creation; 2003 March 10.
<http://www.answersincreation.org/rebuttal/magazines/Creation/1997/pioneers.htm>

24. Stassen, C.; “The Age of the Earth” [Internet]. 2005. <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>

Isaac, M.; “CD013: K-Ar dating of modern rocks” [Internet]. Houston, TX: TalkOrigins Archive; 2004 September 21.
<http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD013.html>