CREATION VERSUS EVOLUTION
Before we go into Creation vs Evolution discussion, we will first understand Radiocarbon Dating or Carbon Dating.
This is because Carbon-14 dating is widely used to establish our dating.
What is Carbon Dating?
Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon (Carbon-14), a radioactive isotope of carbon.
The method was developed by Willard Libby in the late 1940s and soon became a standard tool for archaeologists. Libby received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. The radiocarbon dating method is based on the fact that radiocarbon is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting radiocarbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire Carbon-14 by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point onwards the amount of Carbon-14 it contains begins to decrease as the Carbon-14 undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of Carbon-14 in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less Carbon-14 there is to be detected, and because the half-life of Carbon-14 (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years.
How did Libby verify his Carbon-14 Dating method and concluded it only worked up to 6000 years
Libby tested the new radiocarbon method on carbon samples from prehistoric Egypt whose age was known. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser was dated for example. Zoser lived during the 3rd Dynasty in Egypt (2700-2600 BC). Libby figured that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a radiocarbon amount of about 50% of that which was found in living wood because Zoser's death was about 5000 years ago. The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Many other radiocarbon dates were conducted on samples of wood of known age. Again, the results were good. In 1949, Libby and his team published their results. By the early 1950s there were 8 new radiocarbon laboratories, and by the end of the decade more than 20.
So, only KNOWN age organic materials of up to 5000 years were used for verification in Carbon-14 dating by Libby.
Original Libby's claim only stated that reliability of his data is up to 4000 years old. Errors would increase from 4000 - 6000 years and any material more than 6000 years have not been verified and probably would have higher errors. So, we have not verified organic material more than 6000 years old till today.
This is because Carbon-14 dating is widely used to establish our dating.
What is Carbon Dating?
Radiocarbon dating (also referred to as carbon dating or carbon-14 dating) is a method for determining the age of an object containing organic material by using the properties of radiocarbon (Carbon-14), a radioactive isotope of carbon.
The method was developed by Willard Libby in the late 1940s and soon became a standard tool for archaeologists. Libby received the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work in 1960. The radiocarbon dating method is based on the fact that radiocarbon is constantly being created in the atmosphere by the interaction of cosmic rays with atmospheric nitrogen. The resulting radiocarbon combines with atmospheric oxygen to form radioactive carbon dioxide, which is incorporated into plants by photosynthesis; animals then acquire Carbon-14 by eating the plants. When the animal or plant dies, it stops exchanging carbon with its environment, and from that point onwards the amount of Carbon-14 it contains begins to decrease as the Carbon-14 undergoes radioactive decay. Measuring the amount of Carbon-14 in a sample from a dead plant or animal such as a piece of wood or a fragment of bone provides information that can be used to calculate when the animal or plant died. The older a sample is, the less Carbon-14 there is to be detected, and because the half-life of Carbon-14 (the period of time after which half of a given sample will have decayed) is about 5,730 years.
How did Libby verify his Carbon-14 Dating method and concluded it only worked up to 6000 years
Libby tested the new radiocarbon method on carbon samples from prehistoric Egypt whose age was known. A sample of acacia wood from the tomb of the pharoah Zoser was dated for example. Zoser lived during the 3rd Dynasty in Egypt (2700-2600 BC). Libby figured that since the half-life of C14 was 5568 years, they should obtain a radiocarbon amount of about 50% of that which was found in living wood because Zoser's death was about 5000 years ago. The results they obtained indicated this was the case. Many other radiocarbon dates were conducted on samples of wood of known age. Again, the results were good. In 1949, Libby and his team published their results. By the early 1950s there were 8 new radiocarbon laboratories, and by the end of the decade more than 20.
So, only KNOWN age organic materials of up to 5000 years were used for verification in Carbon-14 dating by Libby.
Original Libby's claim only stated that reliability of his data is up to 4000 years old. Errors would increase from 4000 - 6000 years and any material more than 6000 years have not been verified and probably would have higher errors. So, we have not verified organic material more than 6000 years old till today.
|
Verified C-14 Radioactive Decay Rate versus Calculated Theorectical C14 Decay Rate
|
|
Note that while the fit is still close, not every data point falls exactly on the C-14 Theorectical Decay Curve. In fact, there are quite a number of factors that can throw us out.
|
How did we go from dating 6000 years to Billions of Years?
In summary, humans LIE to get from 6000 years of dating capability to billions of years dating capabilities.
Libby only stated that reliability of his data is up to 4000 years old. Errors would increase from 4000 - 6000 years and any material more than 6000 years have not been verified and probably would have higher errors.
So, how did we jump from understanding and verifying up to 6000 years to billions of years???
We know our scholars use the extrapolated data to billions of years today without understanding that we must verify data before announcing to the world of its accuracy in EXTRAPOLATION. This is basic science that our scholars have violated mainly due to pride and rush to become famous. So, our scholars are willing to lie and cheat to become famous with publications. It happens in all professional sections: Archeology, Medicine, Engineering, Law, Geology and the list goes on. Lying to attain fame and fortune in the world has been human kind habits for centuries perhaps since Towel of Babel.
Unverified Radiometric Dating used today
See below how rampant we extrapolate Radiocarbon (or C-14) from actual 5000 years to theorectical 50000 years and then to Rubidium 700 billion years
Libby only stated that reliability of his data is up to 4000 years old. Errors would increase from 4000 - 6000 years and any material more than 6000 years have not been verified and probably would have higher errors.
So, how did we jump from understanding and verifying up to 6000 years to billions of years???
We know our scholars use the extrapolated data to billions of years today without understanding that we must verify data before announcing to the world of its accuracy in EXTRAPOLATION. This is basic science that our scholars have violated mainly due to pride and rush to become famous. So, our scholars are willing to lie and cheat to become famous with publications. It happens in all professional sections: Archeology, Medicine, Engineering, Law, Geology and the list goes on. Lying to attain fame and fortune in the world has been human kind habits for centuries perhaps since Towel of Babel.
- First, we have Libby up to 6000 years
- Second, as scholars become bolder, theorectical decay rate of C-14 to 50,000 years is plotted.
- Third, scholars boldly use plotted theorectical decay rate of C-14 to 50,000 years to date material.
- Fourth, since C-14 decay rate theoretical is limited to the calculated 50,000 years, scholars began plotting decay rate of other elements.
- Fifth, Explosion of other elements decay rate by using C-14 UNVERIFIED DATA as GOLD STANDARD
- Six, openly use Theorectical Decay rate to date everything today.
Unverified Radiometric Dating used today
- Radiocarbon dating 50,000 years
- Uranium–thorium dating 80,000 years
- Samarium–neodymium dating 1.06 x 1011 years.
- Potassium–argon dating 1.3 billion years
- Uranium–lead dating 2 million to 2.5 billion years
- Rubidium–strontium dating 50 billion years
See below how rampant we extrapolate Radiocarbon (or C-14) from actual 5000 years to theorectical 50000 years and then to Rubidium 700 billion years
|
|
Creation Timeline
The Creation timeline extracted from Scriptures would come up to be about 15000 years with another about 2000 years in our prophecy to go.
Creation Vs Evolution
|
VS |
|
The Evolution Theory still remains as Evolution Theory or Hypothesis today and is the most debated theory to creation today.
We shall explore the CREATION vs EVOLUTION topic here based on evidences we can find till today.
We shall explore Creation (The Bible) vs Evolution (Darwinian Theory) based on the following categories:
- History of Creation and Evolution
- Evidences in Science
- Evidences in Archeological digs
- Population Growth Calculation
Please note that:
CREATION is acknowledging a Creator as our maker we called God
and
EVOLUTION is a scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection
With the findings of giant human bones in various parts of the world, the Evolution Theory (popularised by Charles Darwin in mid 19th century or publication of his book called On the Origin of Species in 1859) just breaks down because we cannot find so many apes this big to become giant humans. However, for those who are not aware about Evolution Theory, it originated from Empedocles from Greek Empire in about 450 BC and later survived into the Roman Empire in 99 BC by Lucretius. The pagans in Ancient Greece had already came up with this Theory about 2300 years before Darwin came along.
It is mind boggling that mankind would believe in Evolution Theory because we have no evidences till today after 2300 years since its inception. However, The Bible that has evidences to show for through
- Prophecies that come true accurately
- Archeological evidences from bones, sites and artifacts found
- Science
Perhaps we have lost our logic in the midst of information overload.
We shall explore the CREATION vs EVOLUTION topic here based on evidences we can find till today.
We shall explore Creation (The Bible) vs Evolution (Darwinian Theory) based on the following categories:
- History of Creation and Evolution
- Evidences in Science
- Evidences in Archeological digs
- Population Growth Calculation
Please note that:
CREATION is acknowledging a Creator as our maker we called God
and
EVOLUTION is a scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection
With the findings of giant human bones in various parts of the world, the Evolution Theory (popularised by Charles Darwin in mid 19th century or publication of his book called On the Origin of Species in 1859) just breaks down because we cannot find so many apes this big to become giant humans. However, for those who are not aware about Evolution Theory, it originated from Empedocles from Greek Empire in about 450 BC and later survived into the Roman Empire in 99 BC by Lucretius. The pagans in Ancient Greece had already came up with this Theory about 2300 years before Darwin came along.
It is mind boggling that mankind would believe in Evolution Theory because we have no evidences till today after 2300 years since its inception. However, The Bible that has evidences to show for through
- Prophecies that come true accurately
- Archeological evidences from bones, sites and artifacts found
- Science
Perhaps we have lost our logic in the midst of information overload.
History of Creation and Evolution
|
|
Evidences in Science
Darwin's book in Chapter VI begins by saying the next three chapters will address possible objections to the theory, the first being that often no intermediate forms between closely related species are found, though the theory implies such forms must have existed. As Darwin noted, "Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion, instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?" Darwin attributed this to the competition between different forms, combined with the small number of individuals of intermediate forms, often leading to extinction of such forms. This difficulty can be referred to as the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in habitat space.
Another difficulty, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin commented that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed," and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (for further discussion of these difficulties, see Speciation#Darwin's Dilemma and Bernstein et al. and Michod)
The rest of the chapter deals with whether natural selection could produce complex specialised structures, and the behaviours to use them, when it would be difficult to imagine how intermediate forms could be functional. Darwin said:
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?
His answer was that in many cases animals exist with intermediate structures that are functional. He presented flying squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors. He discussed various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Chapter VII (of the first edition) addresses the evolution of instincts. His examples included two he had investigated experimentally: slave-making ants and the construction of hexagonal cells by honey bees. Darwin noted that some species of slave-making ants were more dependent on slaves than others, and he observed that many ant species will collect and store the pupae of other species as food. He thought it reasonable that species with an extreme dependency on slave workers had evolved in incremental steps. He suggested that bees that make hexagonal cells evolved in steps from bees that made round cells, under pressure from natural selection to economise wax. Darwin concluded:
Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, —ants making slaves, —the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, —not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.
Chapter VIII addresses the idea that species had special characteristics that prevented hybrids from being fertile in order to preserve separately created species. Darwin said that, far from being constant, the difficulty in producing hybrids of related species, and the viability and fertility of the hybrids, varied greatly, especially among plants. Sometimes what were widely considered to be separate species produced fertile hybrid offspring freely, and in other cases what were considered to be mere varieties of the same species could only be crossed with difficulty. Darwin concluded: "Finally, then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to me opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties."
In the sixth edition Darwin inserted a new chapter VII (renumbering the subsequent chapters) to respond to criticisms of earlier editions, including the objection that many features of organisms were not adaptive and could not have been produced by natural selection. He said some such features could have been by-products of adaptive changes to other features, and that often features seemed non-adaptive because their function was unknown, as shown by his book on Fertilisation of Orchids that explained how their elaborate structures facilitated pollination by insects. Much of the chapter responds to George Jackson Mivart's criticisms, including his claim that features such as baleen filters in whales, flatfish with both eyes on one side and the camouflage of stick insects could not have evolved through natural selection because intermediate stages would not have been adaptive. Darwin proposed scenarios for the incremental evolution of each feature.
Another difficulty, related to the first one, is the absence or rarity of transitional varieties in time. Darwin commented that by the theory of natural selection "innumerable transitional forms must have existed," and wondered "why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth?" (for further discussion of these difficulties, see Speciation#Darwin's Dilemma and Bernstein et al. and Michod)
The rest of the chapter deals with whether natural selection could produce complex specialised structures, and the behaviours to use them, when it would be difficult to imagine how intermediate forms could be functional. Darwin said:
Secondly, is it possible that an animal having, for instance, the structure and habits of a bat, could have been formed by the modification of some animal with wholly different habits? Can we believe that natural selection could produce, on the one hand, organs of trifling importance, such as the tail of a giraffe, which serves as a fly-flapper, and, on the other hand, organs of such wonderful structure, as the eye, of which we hardly as yet fully understand the inimitable perfection?
His answer was that in many cases animals exist with intermediate structures that are functional. He presented flying squirrels, and flying lemurs as examples of how bats might have evolved from non-flying ancestors. He discussed various simple eyes found in invertebrates, starting with nothing more than an optic nerve coated with pigment, as examples of how the vertebrate eye could have evolved. Darwin concludes: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down. But I can find out no such case."
Chapter VII (of the first edition) addresses the evolution of instincts. His examples included two he had investigated experimentally: slave-making ants and the construction of hexagonal cells by honey bees. Darwin noted that some species of slave-making ants were more dependent on slaves than others, and he observed that many ant species will collect and store the pupae of other species as food. He thought it reasonable that species with an extreme dependency on slave workers had evolved in incremental steps. He suggested that bees that make hexagonal cells evolved in steps from bees that made round cells, under pressure from natural selection to economise wax. Darwin concluded:
Finally, it may not be a logical deduction, but to my imagination it is far more satisfactory to look at such instincts as the young cuckoo ejecting its foster-brothers, —ants making slaves, —the larvæ of ichneumonidæ feeding within the live bodies of caterpillars, —not as specially endowed or created instincts, but as small consequences of one general law, leading to the advancement of all organic beings, namely, multiply, vary, let the strongest live and the weakest die.
Chapter VIII addresses the idea that species had special characteristics that prevented hybrids from being fertile in order to preserve separately created species. Darwin said that, far from being constant, the difficulty in producing hybrids of related species, and the viability and fertility of the hybrids, varied greatly, especially among plants. Sometimes what were widely considered to be separate species produced fertile hybrid offspring freely, and in other cases what were considered to be mere varieties of the same species could only be crossed with difficulty. Darwin concluded: "Finally, then, the facts briefly given in this chapter do not seem to me opposed to, but even rather to support the view, that there is no fundamental distinction between species and varieties."
In the sixth edition Darwin inserted a new chapter VII (renumbering the subsequent chapters) to respond to criticisms of earlier editions, including the objection that many features of organisms were not adaptive and could not have been produced by natural selection. He said some such features could have been by-products of adaptive changes to other features, and that often features seemed non-adaptive because their function was unknown, as shown by his book on Fertilisation of Orchids that explained how their elaborate structures facilitated pollination by insects. Much of the chapter responds to George Jackson Mivart's criticisms, including his claim that features such as baleen filters in whales, flatfish with both eyes on one side and the camouflage of stick insects could not have evolved through natural selection because intermediate stages would not have been adaptive. Darwin proposed scenarios for the incremental evolution of each feature.
Through creation, we have a glipse of God's Power, Wisdom, Majesty, Care and Creative Genius. The human conscience reveals God's justice and man's need for redemption. Finally, Jesus Christ is the ultimate revelation of God's love for us. The video below (about 1 hr 20 mins) demonstrates the Creation, Conscience and Glory of God by Dr. John Whitcomb.