Creation or Evolution?

Empirical Evidence Points To Creation (Part 1)

Brian R. Kenyon

There are three ways to arrive at truth: (1) observation (that which can be learned through the senses, sometimes called empirical knowledge; this forms the basis of science); (2) reason (logic); and (3) Divine revelation (what God has revealed in the Bible). This study will look at the first of these avenues of truth as it relates to the creation/evolution controversy. Our anti-God culture has so brainwashed the masses, that to even mention scientific study and creation in the same breath is immediately rejected as impossible. However, one might be surprised to learn that true scientific evidence actually supports the creation of the universe by a supreme being. Obviously, this study will not be exhaustive, but it will point out major areas of "science" that are automatically assumed to support evolution, but which, in fact, do not.

The Fossil Record

The fossil record is probably touted as the single most significant "proof" of organic evolution. Fossils are simply petrified remains of once living organisms. Most scientists will tell us that fossils are millions of years old and confirm organic evolution. There are two facts about the fossil record evolutionists do not want us to know because of the damage done to their theory.

Flawed Dating Methods

The dating techniques for fossils are based on assumptions. One of the most popular dating techniques is radiometric dating, which measures the amount of radioactive material remaining in a fossil as compared to its living counterpart. One of the most familiar forms of radiometric dating is called "carbon-14 dating." Carbon-14 is produced when cosmic (solar) rays collide with atoms in our atmosphere, which creates secondary cosmic rays called energetic neutrons, and when they collide with nitrogen atoms in the earth's atmosphere, the nitrogen atoms turn into a carbon-14 atoms and hydrogen atoms.1 The carbon-14 (radioactive carbon) atoms combine with oxygen to form carbon dioxide, which is naturally absorbed through plants. Plants, therefore, contain carbon-14. When people or animals eat plants and/or animals that ate plants, they absorb carbon-14. Carbon-14 atoms decay, but they are constantly replenished while an organism is living. However, when it dies, it ceases taking in carbon-14.

Carbon-14 dating then simply measures the amount of carbon-14 compared to the carbon-12 (which does not decay) of a living organism. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years (so that if a sample contained one gram of carbon-14 now, it contained two grams 5,730 years ago). Thus, when plugged into a formula, a fossil that contains 10% of the carbon-14 compared to a living specimen is 18,940 years old.2

While this process sounds "scientific" and impressive (to some), it is based on numerous assumptions, the chief of which is that it assumes the rates of carbon-14 production and decay have always been at a constant rate. The carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio now has to be compared with the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio at the time of death, which cannot be known. To illustrate, consider a burning candle.3 Imagine that the wax represents carbon-14. We can measure the remaining candle, and we can even measure the present rate at which the candle burns, but how can we know precisely when the candle was lit? To know that, we have to know the original length of the candle, but how can we? We can compare it to another unlit candle, but we still have no way of knowing whether the burning candle was exactly the same length as the unlit candle!

Radiocarbon dating commits the fallacy of circular reason (begging the question) because it assumes as true (i.e., the rate of carbon-14 production and decay has always been constant) what has not been proven. Several known factors in the past such as volcanic activity would cause carbon-14 production to fluctuate. Besides, there are no living dinosaurs to know how much carbon-14 is the standard by which to measure!

No Gradual Change Evident

Contrary to what we have been told, fossils do not show gradual change, but creatures that are already developed with no hint of common ancestry. If evolution were true, there should be literally millions of transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are the "missing links" that would show creatures in between development. For example, we have fossils of animals with wings and fossils of bird-sized animals with limbs, but where are the fossils of animals with stumps, appendages that are between limbs and wings? Do you know that out of the multiple thousands of cataloged fossils, only a handful are purported to be "missing links"? When these so-called "links" are objectively evaluated, they have proven not to be transitional fossils, but fully formed creatures perfect for their environment. In some cases, these so-called "missing links" were downright hoaxes, tricks purposely fabricated to support evolution! For example, "Nebraska Man" first appeared in the June 24, 1922, Illustrated London News. This missing link, it was finally admitted about five years later, was actually constructed from a single tooth of an extinct wild pig.4 Yet the artist's rendition of this "cave man" can still be seen in some textbooks. Even evolutionists admit, "Fossils may tell us many things, but one thing they can never disclose is whether they were ancestors of anything else."5 Thus, not only is the "link" missing from the fossil record, the entire chain is!6 Let us not be deceived, but objectively examine the empirical evidence.

End Notes

1 Marshall Brain, "How Carbon-14 Dating Works," HowStuffWorks, 13 Dec. 2007 <http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon14.htm>.

2 Brain.

3 Adapted from Trevor Major, "Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating," ApologeticsPress.Org, 4 Dec. 2007 <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2019>.

4 Brad Harrub, "Evolution and the Biblical View of Man," Do You Understand the Biblical View of Man?, Brian R. Kenyon, ed. (Lakeland, FL: Florida School of Preaching, 2008) 358-359.

5 Colin Patterson, Evolution (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1999) 109.

6 Brad Harrub and Bert Thompson, "Creationists Fight Back: A Review of US News and World Report (Full Version)," Apologetics Press.Org, Sept. 2002, 13 Dec. 2007 <http//:www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2094>.