My testimony, part 2

Part 1 TLDR: I was raised christian, later joined the LDS church and felt true conversion.

Part 2 TLDR: I watched Ken hams debate, fact check ham, left YEC, decided to research my early Christian faith, and am still searching, but consider myself an agnostic theist with strongly held atheistic leanings

After joining the LDS church, I quit two horrible dead end jobs I hated, moved, went back to school and got my BS in IT. I started going to church in my new town and even went to the temple to be baptized for the dead (an interesting experience, but kind of disappointing too). After about three months I got a new job, which requires me to work graveyard shifts on the weekends. And after trying to still go to church, I finally quit going. But I still had faith, read my scriptures, and prayed most nights.

Later, I had to move to finish my degree (I had been traveling to another city 80 miles away, but now all my classes were an additional 50 miles away. So I moved to be closer. My new job was also graves, but I tried to make it work this time. It was fun. Eventually I got a new job which required tons of driving and moved again.

At this point I had been not attending church for a while and I started listening to podcasts about science and the is a church from former member (who now were atheists). It took me a while to really get engaged with the atheist podcast since I really didn’t like their bluntness, tone, and irrelevant attitudes. But their topics were interesting. The other podcast was about astronomy and science. It was really interesting and it helped me to begin to develop critical thinking skills and learn more about scientific methods. I began to be more critical towards YEC sites as I began to see their hidden problems.

Finally in 2013 finally watched the debate. While I think Nye won the debate, nothing he said really resonated with me (until the end of Q&A) and I really think he was the wrong person to debate Ham. But the last question asked by an audience member about what would their their minds towards their opponents viewpoint really hit home. Nye said “evidence” and Ham said “Nothing”. I saw pure arrogance in that statement. He was so sure of being right, that nothing could change his mind. And in my mind, I thought, what if God Himself told you you were wrong, would he still not change it?

During the debate I had taken notes, so I decided to fact check claims. Nye really didn’t make too many points that I felt were new to me, but Ham made several. So I fact checked him. I read for several months about Lenskis experiment on e coli. I read both his papers, blog posts, watched his dissertation video online, read up on terms….all of this for several months. Turns out, Ham misrepresented what really happened. Now in my opinion, Ham had a strong case of he had only said it wasn’t evolution to another kind, but I think he wanted to make a stronger case and maybe stretch the truth, somewhat, maybe to avoid any doubt in his followers minds. Nevertheless, his statement wasn’t true.

But, I didn’t just take that one example. I had to be fair. So I researched c14 dating for about 6 months to a year. I read up on terms, ideas, concepts, and theories. I asked questions on forums and read other debates on forums. This is how I discovered that Andrew Snellings and Steve Austin lied too. (to see why I think so, checkout my blog post on blog.philibytes.com). I was devastated. I’ve read other stuff and continued to listen to podcasts and debates but the more I looked, the less convinced I became that YEC was indeed true.

At some point in early 2015, I reached a point, where I knew enough to say YEC was false.
And at that point I had realized that my new beliefs challenged my thoughts about the bible. I had read some stuff by Hugh Ross, and other old earth creationists, and while their ideas seemed to be extremely convoluted attempts to make scripture fit evidence, I wanted to know if I could find a way to reconcile my beliefs. I knew there was a danger I would unravel my beliefs completely. I considered stopping before, before but I had to know if what I believed was true.

So I began studying the bible in depth. I’ve never actually studied the bible in detail; it’s been over a year and I’m still in Leviticus. I’ve researched ideas of divine councils, documentary hypothesis, anachronisms, contradictions, Babylonian myths, Jewish 1st century myths and ideas (my bible is the 1st century NIV bible –https://www.christianbook.com/niv-first-century-study-bible/9780310938903/pd/938903 – and the new Oxford revised standard bible), word meanings, archeology, etc.

So I’m now calling myself an agnostic theist (and honestly at this point I have very strongly felt atheistic leanings) and I’m still learning. I’m open to evidence, but it has to be supported.

PS:
I’m still open to evidence to be shown wrong, but the evidence I’ve seen points the other way. And I know I have lots of reading -actual reading- to do to determine other topics, like evolution, geology, astronomy, etc, but for the things I have studied, I’m more convinced by scientists than YEC sites.

I get asked why I no longer believe the claims made by young earth creation (YEC) sites like icr.com (ICR_, answersingenesis.com (AIG), or creation.com (CREATION) all the time in online forums. So rather than post the same information repeatedly, I’ve decided to make a simple blog post illustrating how they lie to believers.

The two examples I’m listing are only an indicator of the pattern of behaviors exhibited by the folks at these YEC sites. The first is example is very basic and simple error. It’s easy for the people at YEC sites to fix and correct and yet they haven’t after having it pointed out to them. That indicates that they really don’t care about truth. It’s simply a chart used on several articles in both ICR and AIG .  It was used in articles by both Andrew Snelling and Steve Austin. The chart is question is:

This charts is posted in AIG and ICR from the following sources:
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/mount-st-helens/argon-in-mineral-concentrates-from-mount-st-helens-volcano/
https://answersingenesis.org/geology/radiometric-dating/anomalous-potassium-argon-ages-implications/
http://www.icr.org/article/argon-mount-st-helens/

https://creation.com/excess-argon-within-mineral-concentrates

The chart in question is taken from data collected by Darlymple (1969) and looks like this:

Take note of the actual numbers in the second chart and compare them to the first. To make it easier here is a combination:

In this example, Austin and Snellings both made an error and listed the wrong data as dates. They listed instead the sample Ar36/40 amounts. This mistake is perpetuated by other creationists and sites and has not been corrected by Snellings and Austin.  Now it could be a simple mistake, but if that’s the case, why haven’t any of these sites issued a retraction? why is that information still being promoted through other creationists? These errors and a further error (or deliberate falsehood) made by Austin and Snelling are outlined by other scientists who outline the mistakes and errors better than I can. Especially since they have the knowledge and certifications in the field.

Error #2

The second error is more complicated and is actually the one that led me to start my questioning. It was during the 2012 Ken Ham / Bill Nye debate. From the site, here’s a transcript of the debate portion in full:

“Let me introduce you to another scientist, Richard Lensky, at Michigan State University. He is a great scientist; he is known for culturing E. coli in the lab, and he found, there were some E. coli that seem to develop the ability to grow on a substrate, on citrate as a substrate. Lensky is mentioned in this book “Evolution in the Lab.” So the ability to grow on citrate is said to be evolution, and there are those who say, “Hey, this is against the creationists.” For instance, Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago says,  “Lensky’s experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti- evolutionists.” He says,  “The thing I like most is, it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events.”  He says, “That’s just what creationists say can’t happen.”  But is it a poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists? Is it really seeing complex traits evolving? What does it mean that some of these bacteria are able grow on citrate? Let me introduce you to another biblical creationist who is a scientist, Andrew Fabbich.”

“Video clip: “My name is Andrew Fabbich, and I got my PhD at the University of Oklahoma in microbiology. I teach at ?Liberty? University, and I do research on E. coli in the intestine.  I have published in secular journals, from the American Society for Microbiology, including infection and immunity, The American Society for Immunology, as well as several others, and my work has been cited last year in the journals Nature, etc., etc.  While I was taught nothing but evolution, I don’t accept that position. I do my research from a creation perspective. When I look at the evidence that people cite as the E. coli supposedly evolving, over 30 years, over 30,000 generations in the lab, people say that it is now able to grow on citrate. I don’t deny that it grows on citrate, but it’s not any kind of new information. The information is already there, it’s just a switch that gets turned on and off. That’s what they reported, and there is nothing new.”

Ham and Andrew Fabich both made the point that the experiment by Blount et al was an example of “gene switching on and off”. Blount himself gives an excellent treatment of the issues and blatant errors made by both Ham and Fabich.  Quite simply, it was not simply a gene switching on, but rather a duplication of genes to create a new function. As Blount explains:

“You see, one of the major aspects of gene regulation is that genes have associated regulatory DNA sequences, including what are called promoters that control when genes are expressed.  The citT gene is normally controlled by a promoter that tells the cell to turn it on only when there is no oxygen present.  As shown in the Figure below, the gene duplication put one copy of citT next to, and under the control of, a promoter that normally controls another gene called rnk.  The rnk gene is normally turned on when oxygen is present.  The new association between citT and the rnkpromoter – what we call the rnk-citT regulatory module – turns citT on when oxygen is present, and allows Cit⁺ cells to use citrate under the conditions of the LTEE.”

You can check out both Blount’s paper and his dissertation speech and see for yourself whether or not Ham was telling the truth. As for the claim of “new information, I’m still awaiting for a good definition of information and how we would know if “new information” happened. Until then, their argument is lacking.

Summary

In summing up, I hope it is clear that at least in these two cases, it’s clear that YEC sources have a habit of lying to their constituents and in some cases are deliberate in order to prop up their side. If they have the truth, then why lie?

It’s not the best of times, so it must be the worst of times. Everyday we see more and more rampant disregard for morals and values that were held by our parents and grandparents. The signs are everywhere: rampant sexual deviancy, promiscuity, open homosexuality with no condemnation, incurable diseases unchecked, a separation of “godly influence” in the governmental proceedings  ,illegal immigrants moving in – refusing to learn our language – and sacking our capital…oh wait that was Rome during it’s final days, not America. And guess what, humanity survived – yes it was later described as “dark” times – and to be fair it was, mostly due to a lack of scientific knowledge and suppression of human rights. However, we can learn from our past. Instead of condemnation and a call for a return to the non-existent 1950’s idyllic era, we can choose to embrace fewer restrictions on non-traditional groups, more rationality, less rhetoric, more tolerance and peace towards our fellow man. Maybe I live in an idealist world, but we’ll never know unless we strive for progress and not regression.

When I started my first post, which you can read below, I had sated that I didn’t find much online literature that put all the pieces together in a detailed manner. If I had seen this article by Woolf¹, I might have just posted a link and made some commentary. Woolf explains very eloquently the methods and fundamentals of Carbon14 among other radiometric dating methods in a fairly detailed fashion. Having said that, I still think I can build from his article and provide a full framework of the carbon-14 method and therefore intend to write the remaining posts and add in a couple posts discussing claims by creationists – and again this is just a way to generalize a person who believes and argues for young earth creation, the same as a uniformitarianists is a person who argues for an old earth as currently understood by mainstream science; any negative/positive connotations to the words are in the minds of the reader alone.
Woolf sums up the contents of my original post in a succinct and detailed manner:

The element carbon occurs naturally in three nuclides: C12, C13, and C14. The vast majority of carbon atoms, about 98.89%, are C12. About one atom in 800 billion is C14. The remainder are C13. Of the three, C12 and C13 are stable. C14 is radioactive, with a half-life of 5730 years. C14 is also formed continuously from N14 (nitrogen-14) in the upper reaches of the atmosphere. And since carbon is an essential element in living organisms, C14 appears in all terrestrial (landbound) living organisms in the same proportions it appears in the atmosphere.

Plants and protists get C14 from the environment. Animals and fungi get C14 from the plant or animal tissue they eat for food. When an organism dies, it stops taking in C14. The C14 already in the organism doesn’t stop decaying, so as time goes on there is less and less C14 left in the organism’s remains. If we measure how much C14 there currently is, we can tell how much there was when the organism died, and therefore how much has decayed. When we know how much has decayed, we know how old the sample is. Many archaeological sites have been dated by applying radiocarbon dating to samples of bone, wood, or cloth found there.

Radiocarbon dating depends on several assumptions. One is that the thing being dated is organic in origin. Radiocarbon dating does not work on anything inorganic, like rocks or fossils. Only things that once were alive and now are dead: bones, teeth, flesh, leaves, etc. The second assumption is that the organism in question got its carbon from the atmosphere. A third is that the thing has remained closed to C14 since the organism from which it was created died. The fourth one is that we know what the concentration of atmospheric C14 was when the organism lived and died.

That last one is more important than it sounds. When Professor William Libby developed the C14 dating system in 1949, he assumed that the amount of C14 in the atmosphere was a constant. However, after a few years a number of scientists got suspicious of this assumption, because dates obtained by the C14 method weren’t tallying with dates obtained by other means. A long series of studies of C14 content produced an equally long series of corrective factors that must be taken into account when using C14 dating. So the dates derived from C14 decay had to be revised. One reference on radiometric dating lists an entire array of corrective factors for the change in atmospheric C14 over time. C14 dating serves as both an illustration of how useful radiometric dating can be, and of the pitfalls that can be found in untested assumptions.

There are three areas which stem from this which can shed light further on the accuracy of carbon14 dating. These include the history of carbon14 (in brief), the formulas for determining how much carbon14 is in a sample and how old it is, as well as the methods of calibration.

Brief History of Carbon dating

William Libby in a paper outlining the history of radiocarbon dating², explains how in the early 1930s several scientists at the time discovered the effects of cosmic rays on our nitrogen atmosphere (causing neutrons) and conducted some experiments which, as noted by Libby, led to the discovery of Carbon-14³.

Three important facts present themselves from a reading of these articles. The first is an overall improvement of techniques and methods and corrections over the time. This is because, science’s goal is to find a system of knowledge for understanding the universe around us. Old theories are revamped, updated, improved, or replaced by new information, data, and repeatable experiments leading to new theories. Once established though, the more evidence is required for modification. This is true of everything from the theory of gravity to the law of superposition.

Second, while not ideal, sometimes assumptions must be made in science. These assumptions should be small, limited in scope, in order to prevent large sources of error. For instance, if conducting heat/cold experiments with mice, limited assumptions about behavior (the mouse prefers a certain temperature over others) are valid. These draw from our experiences as well as natural occurrences. I would be invalid to suggest the mouse avoids colder temps because he hears voices in his head. Based on this Libby made some limited presumptions and during his experiments tested them. One was the mixing of ocean water carbon-14 content compared to atmosphere; another the fact that the carbon-14 he was dating had been mixing with the atmosphere for the last 30,000 years and was at equilibrium. These were based on some evidences and seemed to fit the data observed in their experiments well. Some of these  – such as the mixing rates of carbon in ocean waters – were verified, adjusted as necessary, and still studied today. Others like the rates of equilibrium were modified later based on new data.

However, a third fact is that some untestable presuppositions can and do influence scientists in some ways in their experiments and theories. For instance, the underlying theory of naturalism, that the universe operates in predictable, naturalistic patterns, means that supernatural means are the least likely explanation, if at all, for observed phenomena. As far as non-miraculous events (i.e the resurrection of Jesus) I would tend to agree. However, these presuppositions (worldview) can also lead to dismissing things that either don’t fit, or are presumed to not work. For instance, Libby speaks about finding methods to test living matter with radiocarbon dating and immediately rules out methane from an oil well “since it would be too old”². This epitomizes the claims of creationists. A final note is how disconnected they were from the studies outside their field – Libby and Arnold were surprised that the only reliably dated artifacts were actually (at the time) only 5,000 years old. Indeed famously, Libby states:

The first shock Dr. Arnold and I had was when our advisors in- formed us that history extended back only to 5,000 years. We had thought initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in, and then our work would be finished. You read statements in books that such and such a society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known accurately; in fact, it is at about the time of the First Dynasty in Egypt that the first historical date of any real certainty has been established.

The same claims are made today how the literature “hides” the true information about the vulnerability of uniformitarianism. Unfortunately, the reverse is also true for the both sides, ideas that have been dismissed or abandoned frequently crop up in the literature.

Calibration

In the 1950s was later noted that some radiocarbon dates did not align with known Egyptian artifacts.⁴. They were measured to be too young, not older. Libby himself spoke about the possibility of cosmic ray variance, but their studies had not indicated any changes. Later,it was discovered that carbon-14 creation does vary slightly and correlates to the strength and direction of the earth’s magnetic field which affects cosmic rays. Several methods were presented as calibration curves to make the process more accurate. These methods included tree-ring chronology (dendrochronology), ice cores, varves, and other dated materials. The specifics of these methods will be outlined in other topics. Below is a graph of calibration methods. The currently favored one is the IntCal09 as reported by Reimer and others. A Sample of these curves are seen here:

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=typical_cal.html

A closer look at the last 5,000yrs calibrated by tree rings is shown below. It is clear when one looks at the graph that less there is less that 1,000yrs difference between uncalibrated carbon-14 ages and the tree ring data. Furthermore, looking at the chart above , the ratio of years difference decreases after a certain period of time. Using these calibration methods, one can arrive at what is thought to be a more accurate date. These calibrations are arrived using objects with known dates, using other dating methods or historical evidence.

Radiometric Decay Rates

Radiometric decay rates, including carbon-14, are stated to conform to predictable and stable decay rates. From these we can use a series of formulas to calculate how much parent material was present (assuming this wasn’t changed in the past), what the half-life of the isotope is, what the constant decay rate is (assuming the rate stayed constant throughout the life of the isotope), and how old the object is (assuming it falls within the range datable by the isotope). These calculations, admittedly, all rely on assumptions, but if correct can be used to date objects. One thing to point out again is that due to the decay rates amounts of isotopes, they are limited to specific ranges. Carbon-14 is theorized to date only to 100,000yrs old.

Note:  the following sites explain these equations very well and are useful to look at:

http://www.chem.purdue.edu/gchelp/howtosolveit/Nuclear/Half_Life.htm#carbondating

http://chemistry.about.com/od/workedchemistryproblems/a/ratedecay.htm

http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/earth/geology/carbon-142.htm

Also, this site has an excellent excel table for calculating several properties of decay – look for the Exploring Radioactive Decay handout:

http://academic.pgcc.edu/~ssinex/excelets/chem_excelets.htm

the basic formula for most operations is shown below:

t_age = [ ln(N/N_o) / –k ] * t_1/2

Where Ln is the natural logarithm,

N/N_o is the ratio of 14C to 12C. This can be expressed in several ways – decay counts, grams, moles, percent, etc – as long as they’re the same units.  k is the decay constant rate, and t_age is the time elapsed from the time of death. Finally, t_1/2 would be the half-life of the element.

For example if we had a sample of wood with an activity of 7.0 counts per minute (decays per minute – cpm) and a  similar sample of freshly cut wood of the same type of tree had an activity of 15.3 cpm and we wanted to know how old the tomb sample is. Now to determine an age is easy if you know two things, the half-life of the isotope, and the rate constant. For instance,

t = [ln(7/15.3) / (-.693)] *(5730)

t = (1.1283) * 5730

t = 6465

It should be noted that this assumes an equilibrium of carbon-14 creation which we know is not true and therefore this should be calibrated to a standard. Second, while the half-life in known today as 5730yrs Libby calculated it as 5568yrs. It is customary to calculate using this number then adjust using the calculation curves.

Further Considerations

Dating “is not like dusting crops”, some complexities exist in how much carbon is absorbed by the living creature or plant. These include the difference of C₃ to C₄ plants and the carbon life cycle of marine animals as well as human effects like the industrial revolution and nuclear age. However, all of these complexities can be accounted for using techniques to determine the true age. For instance, the differences of the plants can be calculated by the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-13, which is measured in the laboratories, as it is affected the same way as carbon-14 in the process of fractionalization within photosynthesis. The effects of nuclear decay are calibrated using a source to test against from before any nuclear testing was performed. The same goes for industrial revolution contamination. By studying and measuring the intake rate of the oceans, a standard can be applied.

Sources:

1. Woolf – Essay on Carbon Dating

2. Libby – History of Radiocarbon Dating

3. Libby – Nobel Lecture

4. Australian National University.

Radiocarbon dating, or Carbon14 (14C) dating, (among other radiometric dating methods) is a key method to determine the age of organic material used within archaeology today. Without radiometric dating methods, it can be argued that science would have few ways to really know how old an object is. Therefore, the validity of the method is extremely important. In reading some of the online literature, I’ve noticed that while some depth is covered in one site, and other depth in another – no site has all of the intricacies in a single place.

As this is a very complicated subject with many nuances, this will be the first post of multiple posts covering this topic. This first post will look at the formation of Carbon 14 in detail. Next, I’ll examine how the ratios and half-lives were determined and calibrated. The third post will cover the various methods of  preparing and testing samples for radiocarbon dating, focusing on the current method of Accelerated Mass Spectrometry (AMS). The fourth will cover some examples of creationist literature which are used to show problems with radiocarbon dating specifically and the responses. There may be other posts which cover side topics such as the earth’s magnetism and tree rings as well as it relates to carbon dating.

For clarity, I should first point out a set of terminology I will be using throughout my posts henceforth. Several words and phrases such as creationists and evolutionists have positive/negative connotations and impressions for different people based on their own opinions. However, it is awkward to constantly refer a site as promoting a certain belief when making a generalization. For brevity, I will refer to a site or group of people who promote creation as creationist. Likewise, sites and people who promote uniformitarianism and naturalistic processes  as uniformitarianists. These are descriptive in nature only and not connotative.

Assumptions

While these assumptions will be covered in greater detail throughout the topic, it helps to understand the basic criticisms of creationists keep in mind these most commonly asserted assumptions¹ (by creationist sites like AiG² and ICR³) about radiometric dating in general:
1. We do not know the exact ratios of the isotopes in the sample (animal, plant, etc) in the past.
2. We do not know if the rates of decay are constant.
3. We do not know if any of the 14C has been lost in the past
4. We do not the magnetic field strengths in the past which affect 14C creation.
5. The atmosphere is not at equilibrium

The overall theme is the lack of knowledge (which will be covered) and how if what is “assumed to be true” is false, then uniformitarianists are wrong and the methods need to be re-examined. There are problems with these presented assumptions, however. First, we do know that the magnetic field has not been constant in strength and polarity. This will be covered in a later post. Similarly, the rate of carbon-14 has not been constant either, and this rate has been measured⁴. This will be covered in-depth further in the second post. Finally, while it was originally assumed that the rates were constant, it has not yet been shown a method by which this decay rate can be changed.⁵ This will also be covered in-depth in a later post.

What is Carbon 14?

Carbon is a very common element that is found in our atmosphere (CO²), and organic (life-bearing) matter. It has three natural isotopes – varieties of an element, based on the number of neutrons in an atom – two of which are stable, and one that is not stable. Carbon-12, having equal amount of protons and neutrons (6) is the most common and makes up 99% of the carbon found in nature. Almost 1% of the remainder is made up of carbon13 (7 neutrons). Carbon 14 (8 neutrons) makes up an average of 1 trillionth of the total carbon content on atmosphere today⁶. Libby, in his 1960 nobel prize lecture, identified the amounts and ratios of observed Carbon-14 to other Carbon.⁷ This ratio was assumed to be constant (in equilibrium) , a logical assumption at the time, but proven to not be true in later experiments and later experiments calibrated the results. Furthermore, the ratio was later calibrated for the effects of atomic bombing which influenced the carbon ratio in modern times. The existence of carbon-14 was first suggested Franz Kurie in 1934, discovered by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben in 1940. Willard Libby and his colleagues pioneered the science of radiometric dating⁸.

How does it form

The normal method Carbon-14 is formed is by cosmic rays (made up of mostly protons) striking the upper atmosphere (troposphere and stratosphere⁸) and producing free neutrons which react with nitrogen (which makes up 78% of our atmosphere) and forms Carbon-14 and a free proton. This is known as “neutron capture”. Due to the instability of the atom, carbon-14 decays back into nitrogen-14. The formula for the creation and decay of carbon-14 is shown in the image below:

Carbon 14 Cycle – courtesy of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

1.Carbon-14 formation
2. Carbon-14 Decay
3. Comparison of Carbon-14 in living vs dead animals/plants

Carbon-14, along with the other isotopes of carbon combine with Oxygen readily and form Carbon Dioxide (CO²) and thereby enters into the plant carbon cycle, whereby plants take in carbon, release oxygen. Animals and humans then eat the plants and take in the carbon isotopes. The process of intake and carbon-14 decay continues until the death of the animal/plant at which point the ratio between carbon-14 and the remaining isotopes of carbon begins to change as carbon-14 decays back into Nitrogen.

Carbon 14 Formation – courtesy of radaractive.blogspot.com

Summing up, Carbon-14 is created in the atmosphere by cosmic rays striking the upper atmosphere, changing nitrogen-14 into Carbon-14. The method of decay is known as beta decay. While several assumptions have been presented as possible problems, the next post will cover these assumptions in detail and cover in more depth assumptions of the dating method. Specifically – how the rates of decay were determined, how Libby determined the ratios of the isotopes and if the decay rates can be changed, and what if any issues are known about the intake.decay of carbon-14. thanks for reading, and please check back soon for part 2.

Feel free to post questions or comments below.

Sources:

1. Six Days – Carbon 14 Dating
2. Answers in Genesis – Carbon 14 Dating
3. Institute of Creation – Carbon 14 Dating
4. NCSE – Answers to Creationist Attacks on Carbon-14 Dating
5. Talk Origins – How Good Are those Creationist Arguments
6. ABC Science – A Date With Carbon
7. Nobelprize – Libby
8. Wikipedia – Carbon-14
Thanks to radaractive.blogspot.com for the use of images from his site.

In the Life of Pi two stories of the protagonist’s survival are told. One is a simple, short description of events and feelings that seem to represent the true account of survival. The other is a more fantastic, emotionally gripping, mystical, human, and spiritual tale of wonder. The question of the film is which one would you rather believe. This of course in the film referring to a belief in God vs atheism and makes an interesting, if diminutive, version of Pascal’s wager.

Similarly, Young Earth Creation (YEC) provides a satisfying tale of wonder, belief, and in the words of Bill Nye “magic”. The difference however, is unlike the case for Christianity – which is much more than a good story – is that some claims for Young Earth Creation if looked too closely begins to fall apart at the seams. For instance, during the 2014 Ken Ham / Bill Nye Debate, Ham’s presentation included Andrew Fabich, a “creation believing scientist”, who said after giving his credentials:

“When I look at the evidence that people cite of E. coli supposedly evolving over thirty years, over thirty thousand generations in the lab, and people say that is it now able to grow on citrate, I don’t deny that it grows on citrate but it’s not any kind of new information. It’s .. the information’s already there and it’s just a switch that gets turned on and off, and that’s what they reported, and there’s nothing new.”

Which of course falls in line with arguments from creationists websites on how there is no new information created in “evolving” organisms. This sounds great and to anyone who is watching the debate and doesn’t look any further, this can be thought as factual. Also, it’s expected that the “evolutionists” would take offense at this and their responses were dismissed, or not even mentioned in the official articles on Answers in Genesis (AIG) and Creation Ministries Institute (CMI).

Historical Background

In 2008 Blount wrote an paper in 2008 titled Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli which described an experiment whereby 12 populations of e. coli were set into an environment where the glucose level was maintained at a level of 25% of the available food source and the remainder was citrate (citric axid), which e coli is unable to utilize as a food source in an oxic – an atmosphere with oxygen – environment. E coli is able to digest citrate and has the metabolism to digest it in a an anaerobic (oxygenless) environment. So given this there is some truth to Fabich claims, the e coli. did not evolve a new method of metabolization wholesale, but this is not what Blount claimed in his work either.

Blount in his paper sets a goal of not proving that e coli can evolve the ability to metabolize citrate – this has been shown in several previous studies that e coli can evolve the ability to metabolize citrate in oxic conditions. Rather this test was to determine whether this is the result of a rare, random mutation that despite odds emerged, or if it was from a series of small combination of mutations that led to this ability. In other words, can evolution work using small series of steps that combine to form a single useful mutation – thereby refuting irreducible complexity as presented by Behe.

The methods used to test the theory of historical contingency Blount took and froze samples at regular intervals. In this manner, tests and analysis could be performed at every stage in order to test theories and predictions. The results and analysis of Blount’s experiment leads them to conclude that the result is due to historical contingency rather than a rare mutation. Further research has confirmed this conclusion and identified the genes responsible for this mutation. Furthermore, as Blount himself explains:

“The evolution of the Cit+ trait involved three successive processes: potentiation, actualization, and refinement. The ancestor’s rate of mutation to Cit+ was immeasurably low, with an upper bound of 3.6 × 10−13 per cell-generation20. Potentiation refers to the evolution of a genetic background in which this function became accessible by mutation. An extremely weak Cit+ variant had emerged by 31,500 generations, which represents the actualization step. The new function was then refined, which allowed the efficient exploitation of citrate, the rise of the Cit+ subpopulation to numerical dominance, and the expansion of the total population size. Of these processes, actualization is the most tractable for study owing to the discrete phenotypic change, and we therefore focused on identifying and characterizing the mutational basis of actualization. With that information in hand, additional analyses then shed new light on the processes of refinement and potentiation.”

In 2008, AIG and CMI both stated that the news was “much ado about nothing” and dismissed the evidence. They claimed, rightly at the time, that there wasn’t much in the way of information about the gene mutation and claimed that despite the claims by Blount, it represented what Behe had said as “the edge of evolution”. However, in 2012 when Blount presented further claims and evidence of mutations in the experiment, the response has been negligible if not absent.

A changing mindset

I was raised with what I considered a strong creation science background in high school and while open to evidences presented, always feel back onto the claims and waited for the evidence to be presented in a more clear way. However, as someone who prefers solid scientific fact, I had begun to see less and less scientific evidence presented in the online sites I was reading. But, the debate promised new hope and as I watched the debate, I took notes and decided to read the actual evidence. Several things jumped out at me during the debate. The first was the fact that Ken seemed to be promoting several “scientists who also believe in the biblical model of Creation” which struck me as an argument from authority. I began a serious look at the claims and evidences presented and have tried to be fair to both sides, however, while there are still good arguments to be made – e.g. this is not molecules-to-man evolution, it’s still e coli, etc., I was disturbed by the online literature and Fabich’s response that it was just a switch turning on/off. I’d like to give the benefit of the doubt, but this can only be a blatant lie or incompetence on the part of Ham and Fabich.

In the end I am still searching for truth, but I sadly, doubt I’m going to find it from either AIG or CMI literature. In the Life of Pi we’d like to believe that fairy tale as it provides a much richer satisfying experience, but if the experience is not based on truth – which is the point the movie missed – then we are only fooling ourselves and no worldview can change that.

“We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is translated correctly;…” – Articles of Faith, verse 8a

“Here are the facts that scholars all across the country agree upon. We don’t even have the original words that these fundamentalist Christians tell us God inerrantly inspired. That’s right. All we have are the words copied by scribes – sometimes correctly, but certainly not always. We have error-ridden copies that are centuries removed from the originals and different from them in thousands of ways”  – Is the Bible True….Really [emphasis original in source]

I had bought Is the Bible True….Really by Josh McDowell and Dave Sterrett as a triple pack special from amazon a week ago The book I really wanted to read was The Bible Handbook of Difficult Verses by Josh McDowell and Sean McDowell. This book, however, caught my eye and I finished that first night.

The book through narrative form lays out the skepticism in the bible and some of their arguments, although not all of them. Having said that it does fill a beginning niche for the young adult and hopefully prepared them for some of the questions they may face. The story begins with a typical young adult – Nick – who had been raised a christian all his life and was starting college. It isn’t clear whether or not Nick had a personal relationship with Jesus or not, but as a professed Christian his world is shaken fairly hard. Honestly, I can relate as I had a faith crisis of sorts a few months back – which I’ll go into in a later blog post – and it’s easy, I think, to change how you think and act while going through it. Getting back to the book, the story continues with Nick finding out about the YouTube sensation Zeitgeist which I’ve watched. He then reads about Misquoting Jesus: The Story Behind Who Changed the Bible and Why. All of this causes understandable doubt and no one in his support group has any answers and the ones they do seem shallow and intellectually unsatisfactorily. So as Nick continues he makes choices that he wouldn’t probably have made ie drinking, premarital sex, etc. At this point Nick is a professed agnostic when professor Jamal enters the scene. Can Jamal help Nick with his faith?

The first thing I enjoyed about this book was that it mentioned several of the common points of criticism.For instance, one common criticism is the fact that there are no original manuscripts – called autographs – of the bible, not one. Having said that there is good reason to believe the New Testament is accurately written as we have it today with some exceptions – for example, Mark 16:8-20 is considered to be later revision added in by a scribe; the original text is lost. The second thing I enjoyed about it was the usage of sources. So many books are presented as persuasive, but provide no sources for the reader to read or have sources that only scholars have access to. My main two criticisms would be that I felt like the book seemed to go out of its way to ensure that Nick/the reader knew what degrees and recognitions, although some were just vaguely said to hold many degrees, the people who believe in the evidence for the Bible held and how they were authoritative in their field of study. Not sure if it’s and example of the fallacy of authority (This prestigious person believes in it, so you should too) or not, but it did seem to crop up a few times. My final criticism is the typical of modern christian literature usage of the “sinner’s prayer” for salvation. I personally don’t believe that you can “pray Jesus into your heart” and be saved through this singular action. Having said that, it was enjoyable and a fast read.

In describing the modern movement of Wicca, D. J. Conway in the book Wiica: The Complete Craft made an interesting comment: “The deities and ideas of any ancient culture EXCEPT CHRISTIANITY can be grafted onto Wicca, thus forming a legitimate form of Witchcraft.” This statement I think illustrates how Christianity is separate from the rest of the world. So what make Christianity different? What makes our God different? In the God Delusion, Richard Dawkins said, “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” I’ve been thinking about this a bit since I came across this quote. I’ll admit that I had to google a few of these words – Dawkins like to use big words apparently – but I’m not going to admit to which ones I looked up :).

So lets break this down. First is God a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak? Let’s start with the baseline. Under who’s opinion? Yes, that’s right this is according to Dawkin’s opinion and in general from the point of view of man. So we must ask ourselves – can we judge? Are we qualified? Are we in a higher moral state? I’m not going to answer, but feel free to supply your own truthful answer.

What about “vindictive, bloodthirsty, ethnic cleanser”? So, this one Dawkins has some scriptural basis. The laws and sacrifices of the old testament were long, dry, and bloody. Having said that, again we should ask can we judge? Having said that, what was the purpose of the sacrifices? 1 Samuel 15:22 says”But Samuel replied: “Does the LORD delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices as much as in obeying the LORD? To obey is better than sacrifice, and to heed is better than the fat of rams.” Obedience is better than sacrifice. So why does He require them? Bloodthirstiness, or is there a better reason?

So how about “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”? Lets divide this into two separate groups “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential…”and “…megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”.

So is God misogynistic? I recently listened to a verse of the bible (numbers 27) where the daughters of Zelophehad came to Moses and said that they too deserved an inheritance of land that was given to the male leaders of the clans and tribes of Israel. Moses took the case before God and the Lord said “The daughters of Zelophehad speak right: thou shalt surely give them a possession of an inheritance among their father’s brethren; and thou shalt cause the inheritance of their father to pass unto them. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a man die, and have no son, then ye shall cause his inheritance to pass unto his daughter. And if he have no daughter, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his brethren. And if he have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his father’s brethren. And if his father have no brethren, then ye shall give his inheritance unto his kinsman that is next to him of his family, and he shall possess it: and it shall be unto the children of Israel a statute of judgement, as the LORD commanded Moses.” Now does this sound like God hates women? So, my question to Dawkins is which verses describe misogyny?

What about homophobic? I’m gonna fall back on scripture and the baseline question of can we judge. Scripture states that we were made male and female. evolution states that gender arose as a product of fitness. So again this becomes a worldview question. Did God tell the Israelites to kill anyone who was caught having improper relations? Yes. This goes beyond just homosexuality to bestiality, adultery, promiscuity, and much more. We are to be kept pure in the eyes of the Lord.

What about racist? I’m guessing this was due to the Israelites being “chosen by god” that Dawkins said this. So is God racist? What about Jesus? Through His Son, all men may know the Father, but inorder for that to happen a race had to be selected who would keep the commandments (or at least had them as their history) and followed God. So why did God order the wiping out of the Canaanites? I won’t to first say that not every theologian/scholar preaches this – I heard a podcast where a scholar made a case that the Israelites were merely attacking the major defensive and religious fortresses. I have not yet gotten and read his book, though so I’m not making that claim, yet :). So is God a racist or did he merely have a plan to present to all of humanity a method of salvation and improvement for us.

The last three “infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal,” of this group are similar in scope and therefore can be covered as one. In short, we have looked at most of these and hopefully, you have asked yourselves the pertinent questions – can we judge, who’s opinion, and does scripture really imply this.

That leaves “…megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.” First, to the elephant in the room, I simply do not see how sadomasochism fits with the Bible. I don’t, sorry. Perhaps someone could explain. I looked up a few videos and posts – still too dense for me. Megolmaniacal? Judgy-judgy aren’t we. 🙂 I think this is answered above with my simple questions. Capriously malevolent bully- aside from the oxymoron of this statement – I’m gonna bully you, no i’m not, yes I am! – I think this again falls to judging.

So in short aside from some few examples where scripture counters – feel free to point out couter-counter scripture – and some misplaced attributes – perhaps Dawkins was reading instead about the Greek gods – I fail to see anything more that self-proclaimed judging of God. And that is what is so wrong with the Christian God, we don’t like being told were inferior – bruises our ego – and submitting to a higher authority. That and since we can explain everything with science who needs a bully, I mean just ruler,creator, loving father, and Savior?

Faith is an action; it is not passive belief. It is thinking critically about what you’ve been told and decideing whether or not you honestly believe it. Anyone can take the teachings of their parents and not question it. That is easy. God created us with a heart, MIND, and soul. We should use our mind to evaluate information around us and check it out for accuracy, but in the end it all comes down to whether what we hear/see/beleive sounds true.

What makes faith different than knowledge is that  faith is a choice to believe despite having little to no evidence. I believe that God sent His son to die for us and that I’m saved. I have chosen to believe this. I can relate personal experiences, but I have no evidence outside of scripture or my personal testimony. I actively choose this everyday. I also believe the Book of Mormon is true. I cannot provide a shred of evidence to back this up.

It’s up to you to decide whether or not you believe this to be the truth.