Does Naturalism Conflict with the Laws of Science?

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Dwayne: Are you defending the Gap Theory? Your response sounds like you are. If so, I would strongly suggest that you read Weston Fields Unformed and Unfilled, A Critique of the Gap Theory. There is no lexical justification for an interpretation of Genesis 1 that includes a Creation/chaos scenario in verses 1 and 2. Apart from the influence of evolutionary dogma no one would accept such an interpretation.

Not sure how you came up with that, but the point is that scientists, even on the basis of standards you reject, run right into the obvious. Regardless of the appearance of age, the appearance of design is not mere appearance. Creation points to the fact that God must exist.

 

[37818]

Creation points to the fact that God must exist.

What must exist is an uncaused reality. Unless one understands that to be God Himself, God is denied being God.

 

[Dwayne McDowell]

On the contrary, scientists can and do come up with scenarios that could account for how God accomplished something. They do this quite frequently, e.g., "abiogensesis" and the formation of our earth-moon. However, their scenarios very often lead to the conclusion that, though they are natural, they are practically impossible without supernatural involvement.

There is plenty of evidence that Genesis is correct in saying that God transformed the earth from a lifeless "waterworld" to one of land, sea, and air teeming with life. God did not exclude everything natural in the process but clearly worked with the media he created, and we should be very careful not to fall into false, god-of-the-gaps claims.

How God may have done something falls within the biblically valid search for understanding. "It is the glory of God to conceal a matter; to search out a matter is the glory of kings," (Proverbs 25:2).

Dwayne: My apologies. The phrase you used, "God transformed the Earth" sounds a lot like what Gappers say about the Earth being destroyed and reformed between verses 1 and 2.

 

[Dwayne McDowell]

Dwayne: There is one more dating scheme that warrants looking at, and that is carbon 14 (C14). Unlike the other radio isotope dating methods this one is generally used to date specimens believed to be less than 100,000 years old. Because of C14s very short half-life (5,730 years) it is more suitable for use on the non-mineralized remains of once living things. However, after about 10 half-life cycles it becomes difficult to detect the presence of C14 even with AMS technology.

C14 dating has some useful applications because it is directly measurable and its decay profile is well understood. However, there are serious weaknesses in the method that have to be considered.

The method involves the ratio of C14 to C12 that the sample contains. C14 decays into Nitrogen 14 over time while C12 is a stable isotope. The atmospheric inventory is about 1 atom of C14 to 1 trillion atoms of C12. Since living things exchange carbon with their environment through eating and respiration, their tissues should contain C12 and C14 in proportion to the environment. Thus, if a sample contains carbon in a ration of 1 to 2 trillion then it is assumed that the plant/animal died long enough ago for the C14 in its' tissues to have undergone 1 half-life. The problem is that we can't know what the C14/C12 ratio was 5,000 years ago. The C14 dating method was only developed about 70 years ago, and there are scientists who tell us that the atmospheric inventory of C14 is growing, and its growth is affected by such things as volcanism, above ground nuclear explosions, the strength of the Earths' magnetic field and solar outputs.

It has been calculated that the average rate of growth should have taken us from zero C14 to equilibrium in 30K years, and we aren't there yet. So, is there any way to know if the method is reliable? Yes, because we can test samples that have a historically known age. A Lake Bonney seal, known to have been dead for about three weeks, carbon dated to 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo dated to 1300 years. Shells from living snails dated to 27,000 years.

C14 is commonly found in coal and diamonds, both of which are believed to hundreds of thousands to millions of years old.

The conclusion, for me at least, is that carbon dating is no more credible than any of the others. I believe that the Biblical account clearly tells us that the Earth is young, and science does not provide us with any proof to the contrary. You can guess where I place my trust.