I cannot believe some of the articles I read on your site. They are blatantly devoid of proven scientific evidence. I am a Christian and also a chemical engineer. Your dinosaur article was brought to my attention by a friend. The statement that “...their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are” is completely wrong. Carbon-13 labelling is used in geology to accurately date rocks and fossils. This is not a “mystical” technology. There is no reason that science and religion cannot coexist, but it is propaganda like this that reflects so poorly on our religion. These articles are simply opinions of the contributors and leave many argumentative holes. I support organizations that research and provide definitive evidence to support their theories. It’s also what I do for a living. You might consider hiring people with these qualities to make your articles. The Bible is certainly a source for knowledge, but simply cannot stand up to some of our modern issues.
I cannot believe some of the articles I read on your site. They are blatantly devoid of proven scientific evidence.
Of course we have articles that have no scientific evidence. We have many articles that are theological, historical, and so on. Not every article is a scientific one that discusses scientific evidence. But if you would take some time to look further, there are quite a few articles on our website that give many examples of scientific evidence.
I am a Christian and also a chemical engineer.
Good. Only one of these will matter in the end though. It seems by stating this you are assuming yourself as an authority in Christianity and in science. This is an appeal to your own authority and thus supposed to give credence to your following statements. However, since you are a fallible human being your word is not necessarily authoritative and certainly not absolute, particularly if it is in opposition to God’s Word, which is perfect (2 Timothy 3:15–17; Hebrews 4:12–13) .
Your dinosaur article was brought to my attention by a friend. The statement that “...their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are” is completely wrong. Carbon-13 labelling
Actually, the line is referencing bones as they come out of the ground visually; so, this shouldn’t be ignored. No Carbon-13 labels are “attached” when they come out of the ground. Carbon-13 is actually a naturally occurring, stable form of carbon that is not radioactive and would be nearly useless in radiometric dating (other than for indicating discrimination against Carbon-14 uptake1). So, I will assume that you are referring to the Carbon-14 radiometric dating method.
is used in geology to accurately date rocks and fossils. This is not a “mystical” technology.
Praise God that your website is fully working again. Our familiy has been praying for aig and the technical problems. Satan will not get the victory, God will. Our daughter has been witnessing to a friend at her public school. Her friend does not believe that God created the world. We are getting information from aig to share with him. She also wants him to go to aig and study on his own. The Lord has been softening his heart and we believe that he is willing to take a look. With God nothing is impossible and prayer is powerful. Please pray for his salvation and we will continue to pray for you. God Bless You.
[Ed. note: friend's name was removed for privacy purposes.]
This uniformitarian method of radiometric dating is not used to date rocks and fossils because of its short half-life of around 5,730 years. Carbon-14 dating can only give a maximum age of 100,000 years. So, it is generally not used to date fossils that are supposedly millions or billions of years old because it is assumed there is no C-14 present. Rocks are not typically dated with C-14 as there is little to no Carbon in most fossil-bearing rock to begin with. However, scientists have now found that C-14 has been found in coal that is allegedly millions of years old.
In recent research diamonds have been tested for Carbon-14, and in each case some Carbon-14 has been found, even though the diamonds are supposed to be more than 1 billion years old. But to say these diamonds were/are contaminated is not a plausible explanation, since diamond lattices are so tight that not even bacteria can make their way inside. (For more information, see Raising the Bar on Creation Research.)
However, there are other uniformitarian dating methods used to give estimates of millions and billions of years, such as Potassium-Argon and Uranium-Lead. Why is it that secular scientists give so much praise to uniformitarian dating methods when referring to a few methods but cringe when other uniformitarian dating methods that support younger ages for the earth are brought up (see table below)?
The late Dr. Henry Morris accumulated a list of 68 uniformitarian estimates for the age of the earth by Christian and secular sources.2 The current accepted age of the earth is 4.54 billion years old, based on radiometric dating of a meteor3 so keep this in mind when viewing the following table.
|Uniformitarian estimates—age of the earth4|
1 million years
500 million years
4 billion years
5 billion years
|Number of uniformitarian methods6||23||10||11||23||0||0|
Even though the Bible teaches the earth is approximately 6,000 years old, secular scientists are constantly trying to prove otherwise (and often pick and choose ages based on what their presuppositions demand). Sadly, there are some key assumptions about many dating methods that are often overlooked. For example, radiometric dating uses two things for sure: 1) the amount of a given element variant, both parent and daughter in a sample at a given time and 2) the half-life of a given radiometric decay at a particular point in time in a lab environment. However, to extrapolate into the unknown past requires three main unprovable assumptions.
What evidence is there that these three assumptions are true? How do the scientists know them to be true? What presuppositions do they have?
There is new research being done by secular scientists that shows that the rate of decay can change.7 Creationists have been saying this for years, and this recent research has corroborated these claims (please consider reading the technical book Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth, vol. 2 or, for laymen, Thousands ... Not Billions).
There is no reason that science and religion cannot coexist,
What do you mean by science, and what do you mean by religion? If you are referring to real operational science, and biblical Christianity, then we agree. Our site is about educating the church and general public about the truth of God’s Word—that it is actually supported by science and not contradicted by it. This is logical, since God created everything, including the physical and chemical laws that govern His creation and make scientific inquiry possible (Job 38:33; Jeremiah 33:25; Colossians 1:16). But what does contradict the Bible are fallible man’s ideas about the past.
but it is propaganda like this that reflects so poorly on our religion.
What reflects poorly on Christianity is when we compromise God’s perfect, unchanging Word with man’s imperfect and ever-changing ideas. If God was wrong about the “earthly things” then how do we know if He is right about the “heavenly”? (John 3:12)
I loved your recent article “Genesis 2:17'you shall surely die'!” on AnswersInGenesis.com! From verses proving that the "death" Adam and Eve were cursed with was physical, not just spiritual, to explaining the "day" in Genesis 2:4, this article answered many of the most puzzling questions I had! Thanks!
These articles are simply opinions of the contributors and leave many argumentative holes.
Which articles? You only mentioned a partial line out of context from one article. Just stating there are “holes” does not make it true. What “holes” are you referring to, and why are they “holes”? When people argue against the biblical view of creation (i.e. God’s eyewitness account of what He created), there is a tendency to say there is no basis for our claims. However, we rely upon what God has told us first, and then we find that science corroborates it. The mistaken view that the earth is billions of years old is actually the view without any solid foundation. The claims about the age of the earth, the big bang, molecules-to-man evolution, etc., are based on man’s intellect alone, which the Bible tells us is untrustworthy because of sin (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Psalm 94:11; Matthew 15:19; Romans 8:6; Hebrews 4:12), in opposition to the revealed Word of God.
I support organizations that research and provide definitive evidence to support their theories. It's also what I do for a living. You might consider hiring people with these qualities to make your articles.
We have indeed hired many well-qualified scientists to speak, research, and write articles and books, such as Dr. Jason Lisle with a Ph.D. in astrophysics, Dr. Georgia Purdom with a Ph.D. in molecular genetics, Dr. Terry Mortenson with a Ph.D. in history of geology, Dr. David Menton with a Ph.D. in cell biology, Dr. Andrew Snelling with a Ph.D. in geology, and Tommy Mitchell, M.D. For more qualified scientists who believe in the biblical view of a young Earth, please see our list of creation scientists.
The Bible is certainly a source for knowledge, but simply cannot stand up to some of our modern issues.
So, you are saying, as a Christian, that an all-knowing God, who is infallible and has always been there and created everything, got it wrong? When you do this, you are raising up fallible man’s ideas to be greater than God's Word. I suggest reading what God has to say on the subject:
Exodus 20:3: You shall have no other gods before Me.
Job 38:4 Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation? Tell me, if you understand.
I want to encourage you to reconsider who your authority should really be. The Bible is more than a mere source of knowledge; it is the history book of the universe.
If we cannot trust all of God’s Word, then how do we figure out what parts we can trust? By the view you are presenting, this would call into question things like Jesus’ resurrection, since it has no scientific explanation. Does it therefore not stand up? The resurrection of Christ is a historical fact, and science can neither add nor take away from the truth. What you are suggesting is that the truth is dependent upon humanity's interpretations and ideas. But if we can no longer trust God’s Word for earthly things (i.e. things that are seen; Romans 1:20), how then can we trust it about the things we cannot see? When God, the absolute source of knowledge and truth (Colossians 2:2-3), gives us His Word we know we can trust it. This is especially important because Christianity is based on His Word. Remember Jesus’ warning to Nicodemus in John 3:12: If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things?
I pray you will learn to trust God’s Word in everything, just as you did in trusting it when you received Jesus Christ, our Creator, as Lord and Savior.
In His name and for His glory,
Help keep these daily articles coming. Support AiG.
“Is creation a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?” This DVD features Bill Nye and Ken Ham debating one of the biggest questions concerning the scientific community today.
Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis. In it you will find fascinating content and stunning photographs that present creation and worldview articles along with relevant cultural topics. Each quarterly issue includes a detachable chart, a pullout children’s magazine, a unique animal highlight, excellent layman and semi-technical articles, plus bonus content. Why wait? Subscribe today and get a FREE DVD download!