Are there any apologetic books that deal with Evolution and fossils/geology/carbon dating?

[Anon1379]

I was looking for some books to read that specifically deal with the claims that evolution and scientists make about the world today. Specifically fossils and carbon dating. We always hear the world is billions of years old, because we dated a fossil and it is dated billions of years ago. Is there any books that refute and deal with the issues. My favorite apologist is James White but he doesn't really deal with Evolution to my knowledge. I have seen a few books that deal with the topics but I'm not sure if I trust the authors. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[church mouse guy]

Three places to search for free articles as well as find items to purchase are

The Institute for Creation Research https://www.icr.org/homepage/

Creation Ministries International Creation | Creation Ministries International

Answers in Genesis Answers in Genesis

Here is one free article among many dozens: Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth

 

[Deacon]

I was looking for some books to read that specifically deal with the claims that evolution and scientists make about the world today. Specifically fossils and carbon dating. We always hear the world is billions of years old, because we dated a fossil and it is dated billions of years ago. Is there any books that refute and deal with the issues. My favorite apologist is James White but he doesn't really deal with Evolution to my knowledge. I have seen a few books that deal with the topics but I'm not sure if I trust the authors. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Let me try to understand your post...
You are confused by the evidence that shows that the earth is far older than you have ever imagined, and you want literature that reinforces what you already believe???

AIG fits that bill but it’s like popcorn, it tastes good but it doesn’t quite fill you up and it leaves you greasy and a bit ill when you partake too much

A book was mentioned the the Book Forum that may satisfy your curiosity in a fuller way.

A World View Approach to Science & Scripture, by Carol Hill

Rob

 

[Anon1379]

Let me try to understand your post...
You are confused by the evidence that shows that the earth is far older than you have ever imagined, and you want literature that reinforces what you already believe???

AIG fits that bill but it’s like popcorn, it tastes good but it doesn’t quite fill you up and it leaves you greasy and a bit ill when you partake too much

A book was mentioned the the Book Forum that may satisfy your curiosity in a fuller way.

A World View Approach to Science & Scripture, by Carol Hill

Rob

Thanks, and I wouldn't say I'm confused, just want to better understand and argue my viewpoint better. Not everyone needs to study let's says the Mormons to understand their religion is false and full of holes. But if you were to talk with a Mormon, you would need to know some arguments otherwise they would walks away thinking they are right.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

 

[church mouse guy]

Let me try to understand your post...
You are confused by the evidence that shows that the earth is far older than you have ever imagined, and you want literature that reinforces what you already believe???

AIG fits that bill but it’s like popcorn, it tastes good but it doesn’t quite fill you up and it leaves you greasy and a bit ill when you partake too much

A book was mentioned the the Book Forum that may satisfy your curiosity in a fuller way.

A World View Approach to Science & Scripture, by Carol Hill

Rob

You mean AiG.

The central scientific problem is that there is no proof that the rates of decay are uniform in spite of what iniformitarianism has claimed since the Enlightenment ushered in by the atheists & deists. So it is uniformitarianism that is illogical and unscientific. Also, the American labs could not correctly date the rocks from Mt. St. Helens, making them an international laughingstock.

 

[Deacon]

So it is uniformitarianism that is illogical and unscientific. Also, the American labs could not correctly date the rocks from Mt. St. Helens, making them an international laughingstock.

This is a fine example of where AiG uses the practice of deceptive argumentation.
Volcanic rocks are difficult to date for a variety of reasons: same with sea shells.
Anyone familiar with radiometic dating would dismiss the argument as invalid, but it sure sounds meaty to anyone wishing to validate their own belief.

A recent article in “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith” magazine titled ‘Nuclear Chemistry and Medicine: why “Young-Earthers” Cannot Have It Both Ways’ vol. 71, number 4. (Here)

“We argue that the best explanation for the success of these medical applications is that our current framework of nuclear chemistry is, in the main, correct. We further argue that this framework also entails the prevailing models of radiometric dating, according to which the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. We thus conclude that “young-Earthers” (those who think the earth is ten thousand years old or less) cannot have it both ways. That is, they need to either provide an alternative explanation for the success of nuclear medicine or accept a much older earth.” p. 203
​

I work in the field of nuclear medicine, so this article strikes close.

Rob

 

[church mouse guy]

This is a fine example of where AiG uses the practice of deceptive argumentation.
Volcanic rocks are difficult to date for a variety of reasons: same with sea shells.
Anyone familiar with radiometic dating would dismiss the argument as invalid, but it sure sounds meaty to anyone wishing to validate their own belief.

A recent article in “Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith” magazine titled ‘Nuclear Chemistry and Medicine: why “Young-Earthers” Cannot Have It Both Ways’ vol. 71, number 4. (Here)

“We argue that the best explanation for the success of these medical applications is that our current framework of nuclear chemistry is, in the main, correct. We further argue that this framework also entails the prevailing models of radiometric dating, according to which the earth is approximately 4.6 billion years old. We thus conclude that “young-Earthers” (those who think the earth is ten thousand years old or less) cannot have it both ways. That is, they need to either provide an alternative explanation for the success of nuclear medicine or accept a much older earth.” p. 203
​

I work in the field of nuclear medicine, so this article strikes close.

Rob

How can anyone prove that the rate of decay has been the same for the last 6,000 years? If volcanic rock cannot be dated because the radioactive decay looks old when it is really new, how can we say that any rock is old? No one knows what the rate was before the flood or during the flood and uniformitarians are just assuming that rate has always been the same since the beginning of the Enlightenment and Lyell & Hutton so postulated. Of course, if the practitioners of nuclear medicine in Adam's time had left records with Noah....

I am reading a book on anti-gravity and it is impossible to put down.

 

[Deacon]

I am reading a book on anti-gravity and it is impossible to put down.

I’d bet it’s quite uplifting!

How can anyone prove that the rate of decay has been the same for the last 6,000 years?

Simple answer? Look for something with a known date and test it.
Wood items, for example, have tree ring data that helps us determine a date. From that sample we can use radiometric C14 dating to test for reliability.

Historical human artifacts can also provide good samples.
Test enough of samples (in a variety of environments) and researchers can develop a pattern.

Once a pattern is established a researcher can begin to extrapolate into samples of undetermined age.

Samples older than 70k years fall outside the range of carbon14’s reliability.
Therefore other isotopes have to be used.

In my lab we use very short lived isotopes, thallium, technetium, and rubidium, to study the flow of blood through the heart. Each has a known rate of decay. Each test has a known rate of reliability. The reliability is not 100%; sometimes factors beyond our control effect the study. So we look for other evidences along side the study to aid us in confirming the results... Bayes theorem

Rob

 

[37818]

The book is out of print. I have the 7th edition.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

9th-edition-walt-brown-in-the-beginning-20190608.pdf

[FYI: I hold a literal Genesis intpretation that falls between OEC and YEC. But is neither common views.]

 

[church mouse guy]

I’d bet it’s quite uplifting!


Simple answer? Look for something with a known date and test it.
Wood items, for example, have tree ring data that helps us determine a date. From that sample we can use radiometric C14 dating to test for reliability.

Historical human artifacts can also provide good samples.
Test enough of samples (in a variety of environments) and researchers can develop a pattern.

Once a pattern is established a researcher can begin to extrapolate into samples of undetermined age.

Samples older than 70k years fall outside the range of carbon14’s reliability.
Therefore other isotopes have to be used.

In my lab we use very short lived isotopes, thallium, technetium, and rubidium, to study the flow of blood through the heart. Each has a known rate of decay. Each test has a known rate of reliability. The reliability is not 100%; sometimes factors beyond our control effect the study. So we look for other evidences along side the study to aid us in confirming the results... Bayes theorem

Rob

Tree rings are unreliable because a tree can have more than one ring per year. How can any human artifact be older than the flood 4300 years ago?

 

[church mouse guy]

The book is out of print. I have the 7th edition.
The Center for Scientific Creation: Home of the Hydroplate Theory

9th-edition-walt-brown-in-the-beginning-20190608.pdf

[FYI: I hold a literal Genesis intpretation that falls between OEC and YEC. But is neither common views.]

Thanks!

I like Walt Brown. He is retired now but his work is generally good. YECs are using the term Biblical Creationists to categorize themselves. I had a difficult time accepting 6000 years but I finally concluded that the figure goes back to the church fathers and thus I followed them.

Deep time is an oriental idea from Hinduism and passed into occidental thinking by pagan Greeks before Rome. It was revived by the atheists during the Enlightenment and pawned off on the church during Darwin's era. It prevailed for a century until Morris and Whitcomb published their book "Genesis Flood" in 1961. Science has now rejected Darwin as mathematically impossible. Since DNA has 250 molecules made up just so from 20 different amino acids, the high school math problem is 20 times 20 250 times for every strand of DNA in the universe.

 

[Rhys]

Chemistry is a much better indicator of the age of the universe than geology. To paraphrase Robert Dicke, thermonuclear combustion is required to make heavy elements out of hydrogen- a process which takes several billion years.

 

[Yeshua1]

I’d bet it’s quite uplifting!


Simple answer? Look for something with a known date and test it.
Wood items, for example, have tree ring data that helps us determine a date. From that sample we can use radiometric C14 dating to test for reliability.

Historical human artifacts can also provide good samples.
Test enough of samples (in a variety of environments) and researchers can develop a pattern.

Once a pattern is established a researcher can begin to extrapolate into samples of undetermined age.

Samples older than 70k years fall outside the range of carbon14’s reliability.
Therefore other isotopes have to be used.

In my lab we use very short lived isotopes, thallium, technetium, and rubidium, to study the flow of blood through the heart. Each has a known rate of decay. Each test has a known rate of reliability. The reliability is not 100%; sometimes factors beyond our control effect the study. So we look for other evidences along side the study to aid us in confirming the results... Bayes theorem

Rob

What if God created everything to have a built in Aged look, but still be quite young?

 

[Yeshua1]

Tree rings are unreliable because a tree can have more than one ring per year. How can any human artifact be older than the flood 4300 years ago?

IF one accepts a literal view on genesis, gets to universal flood, and no evolutionary process involved!

 

[Yeshua1]

I was looking for some books to read that specifically deal with the claims that evolution and scientists make about the world today. Specifically fossils and carbon dating. We always hear the world is billions of years old, because we dated a fossil and it is dated billions of years ago. Is there any books that refute and deal with the issues. My favorite apologist is James White but he doesn't really deal with Evolution to my knowledge. I have seen a few books that deal with the topics but I'm not sure if I trust the authors. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks

Sent from my ONEPLUS A5000 using Tapatalk

There is a local Christian Apologist here in metro Detroit area, over 30 years now, excellent work, he has Dvds on evolution and dating issues, name BoB Duco, radio station Wmuz 103.5 the light!

 

[Yeshua1]

Let me try to understand your post...
You are confused by the evidence that shows that the earth is far older than you have ever imagined, and you want literature that reinforces what you already believe???

AIG fits that bill but it’s like popcorn, it tastes good but it doesn’t quite fill you up and it leaves you greasy and a bit ill when you partake too much

A book was mentioned the the Book Forum that may satisfy your curiosity in a fuller way.

A World View Approach to Science & Scripture, by Carol Hill

Rob

Think bottom line on this is how one views Genesis, if literal , then no evolutionary process, worldwide flood, young earth, if not, get into Theistic evolution and extreme dates!

 

[Marooncat79]

The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse. The One Stop Shop

 

[just-want-peace]

....

I am reading a book on anti-gravity and it is impossible to put down.

Title, please!! Sounds like something I'd be interested in.

 

[Deacon]

Title, please!! Sounds like something I'd be interested in.

Sarcasm doesn’t work well in written form. It was a joke!

Rob

 

[Deacon]

IF one accepts a literal view on genesis, gets to universal flood, and no evolutionary process involved!

First things first, it wasn’t a UNIVERSAL FLOOD, it was described as a world-wide flood. You have take the biblical hyperbole to a whole new level.

Second,
Think your recent flood theory through and follow its consequences.
I’ll keep variables very simple.

Theory
1. Recent flood ... say less than 10k years ago.
2. Limited gene pool of animal life (only those on the ark).

Current environment
1. A wide genetic diversity
2. Multiplicity of animal types

Conclusion:
It’s true, current evolutionary theory can not explain the diversity of animal life if there was a young earth and a recent world-wide flood.

SO....Creation science doesn’t mean “NO EVOLUTION”, it requires a quantum-force evolution in order to explain the current environment.

Rob