Skip to content

Today's Creation Moment

Why Are You?
Genesis 1:27
"So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them."
When you know who made something and why it was made, you know the purpose of the item. That's true of can openers, and it is true of human life. Anyone who doesn't know who designed us or why is...

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.


I appreciate very much that Steve's letter-to-the-editor has been made available here by Creation Moments. It is very concise, clear, simple and to the point. Would it be possible to receive permission to translate the entire piece into my native tongue Nepali?

Pradesh Shrestha

Yes, feel free to translate it and use it. All we ask is that you let us know what kind of response you get to the letter.

"Evolution has no basis in Christianity"
Well you are not wrong there. Why should a scientific theory have any link to what a few Bronze Age desert tribesmen thought? The Bible has about as much relevance to the real world as Harry Potter. Unicorns, giants, talking snakes, zombies, dragons...... Oh wait! It IS Harry Potter.

Evolution has no basis in science. It is based purely on religion. The only reason for evolution is to escape from judgment. As Mr. Risner pointed out so well, evolution is a belief system, not a scientific system. My field of study for 20 years has been radioactive decay of isotopes. As Mr Risner pointed out, your presuppositions determine the age of any sample you analyze. Any scientist familiar with radiodating will confirm this.

Yes, evolutionism is a belief system that supports arrogance instead of humility. I appreciate the author's pointing out that Christianity leaves no room for macroevolutionism. It is a fact that the Lord specifically designed each and every living being, as an entire and complete design meant to function within the limits the Lord placed on it. One of these limits is that all things reproduce each after its kind. People who seek the accolades of the world by trying to cram the fiction evolutionism on top of the facts of creation are not Christians, and have no respect for truth. All they want is the praise of others. As for the Lord, they figure they can trample Him underfoot and smile as if it makes no difference to their salvation. I've got news for them: it does. You cannot follow the vain philosophies of men and expect to be saved. You cannot go against the Lord and yet retain your salvation. You will not be saved. You cannot be saved. And all because you wanted someone to pat you on the back because you chose to cherish a lie.

Snakes and dragons obviously have more education and intelligence than someone who has never read the Bible and yet thinks he can dismiss it. You should actually read the Bible before you spout off like this. And learn some humility, will you? You are lost without your God and your Savior, and some day you will regret being so arrogant.

Thank you for your thoughtful summary of the evolutionary argument for the origins of life and subsequent descent with modification. For evolution to occur requires the spontaneous generation of new life forms (assuming the platform of the necessary DNA / RNA is available along with the necessary cell machinery to translate the DNA into the proteins required for life to exist). Because changes in DNA sequences are required to produce new life forms, then this aspect of the evolutionary paradigm is a critical event that must occur to produce new life forms. However, mutation events are known to be random and rarely productive so that any mutational outcome is likely to be non-viable.

The evolutionary explanation for the existence of life cannot sustain the kind of logical argument that can lead us sequentially to a conclusion that life could come into existence and even become increasingly more complex as it climbs the evolutionary ladder. Any robust argument presented to describe a real world event should contain a series of steps, each one of which can be seen to be derived from a reasonable precursor. Evolutionary science cannot provide this type of step-by-step model which might in turn allow it to be examined in terms of the reasonableness of each identifiable intermediate or stage which, when placed into an overall scenario, constitutes a persuasive argument for the truth of evolution. The problem for evolution is that the Truth is in the details and can be recognized where it is present. There is no such Truth to be discerned in the evolutionary model, I believe.

There is but one reason for the theory of evolutionism: a desire to escape the justice of God. It has no basis in logic. Evolutionists hate any mention of design for the sole purpose that they wish to avoid the Designer. And why? It is because they have no desire to humble themselves before a righteous God, but instead want to raise up their heads in wickedness.

It's the same for Christians who allow for evolutionism. They are only interested in being accepted by the wicked rather than being rejected by them. You can easily spot someone who wants to avoid the Lord. He or she will always bring in what other people say and go by that instead of what the Lord has said. Time and again, I have heard the argument that this many or that many humans believe something, therefore it makes it true. Well, humans believe a great many silly things, but the silliest of all is that they can disobey God and get away with it. And denying what the Lord has said so you can accept what people say is one sure-fire way to not only be inaccurate, but make yourself unfit for heaven.

This really reminds me of people who claim they are Christians but deny Christ is God. Well, the very definition of a Christian is you know Christ is God and you must obey Him and Him alone. Stating that many people believe Christ is less than God will not change the fact that he is the Almighty, and I do mean Almighty. All the theories on evolutionism will not reduce Him one whit, but you, as a human, can and will be reduced to the nothingness that you are without the Lord's help.

"Man’s understanding is continually evolving"

Very unfortunate usage of the term in an otherwise excellent primer for everybody about the problems with the doctrine of Evolution.

The only thing that I might add, that was partially touched on, is the fact that Evolution absolutely requires belief in the god of aeons of time. If that god is given only 1 or 2 zeroes, everybody would call it a "fairy tale". Somehow, giving that god of aeons of time 7 or 8 zeroes turns the fairy tale into "science" for many people today.


The theory of evolution requires organisms to change into something new that is "better" or has a higher probability of continued existence than what it was before and then replace the "old version". Question: If this is true, and mankind and apes both "evolved" from a common ancestor, a truism of evolution, then why do we have humans and still also have such a wide variety of apes in all corners of the world? Answer: because Darwinian evolution does not occur. The same could be said about many different types of animals that are supposed to have evolved from common ancestors. On a macro scale, if evolution were true, it must lead to there being only one form of life on this planet. This is because the theory requires the first life form to evolve into something "better" and then take over and squeeze out the "inferior" earlier life form. This would be especially true in the beginning stages of the evolutionary process since it all starts with just one type of life form in the primordial soup. For the amount of diversity we have on this planet to have all "evolved" from a single life form, no matter how much time you give it, falls into the realm of statistical impossibility, and is contrary to the theory itself.

Seemingly, one can turn the statement around, and affirm that the earth is very old, but it was aged very rapidly. There would be no reason that an all powerful God could not or would not imbue the universe with his marvellous intelligent design, and then fast forward it to the point at which we appear ... since it is we that He intended to create, above others.

The speed of light, combined with astro-physical calculations, have for a long time pointed to an old world and universe. Many different astro-physical calculations reproduce identical results, as in the accountant's spreadsheet, left to right, and top to bottom. But - God can do anything - including the use of the fast-forward button.

Unfortunately, you are utilizing Eisogesis and attempting to inject your belief into the Bibilical account rather than accepting the Biblical account for what it says and aligning your life with that. God has been very clear and detailed as to what He accomplished on our behalf. Why should we try to change that just so that we can fit in with those who reject Him utterly? Where is the benefit?

Christians who claim to believe in evolutionism are, in fact, merely more interested in peer approval than they are in having the Lord's approval. In other words, they only want to hang out with other humans who lift themselves up in wickedness. They don't want to humble themselves before the Lord.

You can always track down what's behind every kind of human foible, and it's inevitably pride. How proud is the human who lifts himself up even against God! Going to church doesn't make you obedient. Hearkening to the voice of the Lord does. Don't even bother to go to church and tell yourself you're a good person if you don't want to listen to the Lord. Just forget it. You're nothing better than a hypocrite.

I've heard plenty of people at church talk about how it's important not to lose anybody so (1) provide entertainment that's agreeable at church, (2) don't tell anyone to dress appropriately when they enter the house of the Lord, and (3) pretend that everyone can disagree as much as they like with the Lord and it's perfectly okay.

Well, it's not okay. And you can measure exactly where people stand by whether they object to the word of the Lord. I've gotten up in church and told the congregation that as Christians they had no excuse for disagreeing with the Lord and following after the vain philosophies of the world, and it was a very unpopular message. Why? Because a lot of people treat church as a social club. It's just a place to associate with others while patting yourself on the back.

Well, the Lord's not going to be patting anyone on the back who is busy disagreeing with Him. People who can never listen to the Lord because they want to go along with the crowd will exclude themselves from heaven.

If you do not know for yourself, for an absolute certainty, exactly what happened during the planning, design, and execution of creation, it's your responsibility to check with the Lord directly. And when you get His response, you will find out the scriptures are accurate, and creation really was far, far more specific and planned than you ever thought, and beautifully done, instantly, without the slightest possibility of evolution, either in heaven or on earth.

We understand through the recordings of the Bible, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit, that God created Adam as a mature, adult man. There is no reference to gestation periods, infancy, childhood, adolescence.

Following this possibility, why isn't God able to create a mature, adult universe as well? In human time, perhaps we can deduce Adam being created in his late teens, mid-20's. Just as we can deduce the universe was created in an adult stage as well.

Just something to think about since Jesus states, "Nothing is impossible for God."

The problem is that there are many dating sources which converge INDEPENDENTLY: the only solution would be to believe in a deceitful god.

I fail to see why Inerrancy is that important to you, folks....

The inescapable flaw of radiometric dating is the idea of an unchanging closed system. Where does that exist on earth? Nowhere. Everything else falls apart because you can see right before your eyes that there's no such thing. It's similar to the erosion rates postulated by evolutionists. You can see in any minor flood or other common tumult that erosion rates vary greatly, and there is no such thing as a fixed and slow rate that you can predict. The only reason anyone would suggest such a patently ridiculous idea is because they have no interest in actual evidence. They only want to make things up as they go along, discarding everything that proves they are wrong.