Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

One Smelly Amoeba
Job 9:25-26
"Now my days are swifter than a post: they flee away, they see no good. They are passed away as the swift ships: as the eagle that hasteth to the prey."
Not all dangerous predators can be seen. One of the most dangerous predators in a drop of pond water is Amoeba proteus. This amoeba literally terrorizes its one celled pond mates because they can...

Reply to comment

The Problems with Evolution, Part 4: Radiometric Dating and Conclusion

This blog posting was written by Steve Risner and is used with his permission. Steve is a member of the Creation Moments group on Facebook. He wrote this as a letter to the editor of his local newspaper. We have broken up the letter into four parts. Today's post brings the series to an end.

Commonly pointed to as evidence for an old earth is radiometric dating – the idea of using the rates at which a radioactive substance slowly decays into another, like uranium turning into lead. Radiometric dating is heaped in assumptions and many unknown components, and it has recently been found completely unreliable. There are three major assumptions when we consider radiometric dating. These assumptions are: the decay rate has always been the same, the starting amounts of each substance were known, and the system remained undisturbed during the entire time. We cannot know the last two at all unless we can travel back in time and see for ourselves. The first assumption has been clearly shown to be false. Decay rates of radioactive substances can easily be influenced by a variety of things. There is also the not-often-publicized fact that dating methods used on the same rocks frequently give enormously different results, many times in the tens of millions of years. Oftentimes, the dates that fit with the theory of evolution are considered accurate and the others are thrown out. There is literally no reason to believe the earth is billions of years old unless your theory requires it to be this old.

In closing, I feel it’s important to note that the theory of evolution from a single common ancestor has no basis in science. Those who say, “Evolution is a fact” and “All biology stands upon the shoulders of bold theorists such as…Charles Darwin” are either misinformed or they are being deceptive.

Evolution from a common ancestor cannot claim a single advancement in science. Most examples given (antibiotic resistance or genetically modified crops) demonstrate a misunderstanding of the concepts. All it can claim is wasted billions of dollars.

Evolution also has no basis in Christianity. Many have tried to combine the Bible with evolution. This does not work on any level. The inconsistencies are immense. One cannot adapt a logical connection between what God’s Word clearly states (not just in Genesis but in a variety of other passages in the Bible) about the creation of the world and life with Darwinian evolution. This is true for the origins of life and of death. Commonly referred to as theistic evolutionists, they have no ground whatsoever to stand on. They generally reject God’s Word and attempt to manipulate it to match how man has interpreted the world around him, knowing full well that interpretation will be thrown out in a few decades and replaced with another set of ideas which will be thrown out in a few decades and replaced with yet another set of ideas. Man’s understanding is continually evolving. God and His Word do not change. The idea that God created the earth in six literal days and put life here in its various forms is backed very well with science. There are scores of scientists who believe the Bible and its explanation for life’s origins.


The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options