The Answers to Part 6
The Bible, the Created World and Modern Science


51. Yes. Consider the common disintegration of radioactive uranium into lead. The amounts of the elements involved must, clearly be measured most accurately and the relative decay constants (i.e. rates of decay) also accurately known. In one sample there are usually many impurities (usually much greater than the uranium or lead etc. quantities). All the uranium and lead must be extracted and measured according to their specific isotopes (there are different isotopes of uranium, lead etc. only one of each belongs to the particular radioactive disintegration series). Furthermore some of the uranium or lead may have been removed (or added) by leading (or other processes) over the years. Therefore assumptions have to be made which, obviously, might be false and, therefore, give invalid conclusions.return

52. Carbon dating is different, nevertheless it is still subject to two major assumptions. These are that the carbon 14 concentration in the carbon dioxide cycle is constant. The other is that the cosmic ray flux (which produces carbon 14) has been essentially constant for many centuries. There are at least two other assumptions namely the constancy of the rate of decay of carbon 14 atoms and also that of all carbon 14 atoms involved originating from the cosmic effect.return

53. Estimates of the age of oceans based upon the amount of sodium (i.e. from salt) in the sea and the present rate of erosion give an age only a fraction of that usually attributed to the oldest sedimentary rocks, the formation of which depended upon the existence of the oceans in the first place! And the ocean age assumed no salt in it to start with!return

54. Evolution is taken to mean anything from bacteria developing resistance to antibiotics to the grand claim that the universe and mankind "evolved" by random, purposeless, mechanical forces. A word that elastic misleads by implying that we know as much about the grand claim as we do about the small one.return

55. Not really if you mean by building blocks those amino acids, sugars etc. which are necessary for the construction and self replication of living cells.return

56. These scientists use intelligence, specialist knowledge and conditions to select breeding stock and protect their charges from natural dangers. Evolution insists that random, purposeless natural processes can bring about. Furthermore, when such specialised breeds are allowed to return to the "wild" the most highly specialised breeds quickly perish and the survivors revert to the original "natural" type.return

57. Not so. The various finches are still finches and not eagles or monkeys! There is a limit to the capacity for variation as selective changes are constrained by the finite gene pool.return

58. I don't think so! You see scientists like their explanations to be able to be tested and hold true. For example the theory of gravitational force is used to explain why objects attract one another as Sir Isaac Newton observed with his apples! The theories of chemical bonding explain why some compounds can be synthesised and their electrical conductivity predicted - and tested. The theory of evolution just hasn't been able to be tested in this way.return

59. In my opinion simply a matter of Faith. Evolutionists believe that one kind of creature can gradually be transformed into another kind of creature. This is simply a biological hypothesis - not a fact. Christians believe that God created each and every creature, mature and able to reproduce on a "mature" earth in a "mature" universe. By definition God can do anything - He made the scientific laws and can uphold or suspend them as He wills. The evidence is there, both in the Bible and in our scientific literature!return