I happily pranced out of the church of my childhood …

Comment on Adventist Education–at the crossroads? by Lisa Ekdahl.

I happily pranced out of the church of my childhood (Catholic) in my late teens on the Bible pages my own church ripped out of the Bible. My early catechism training may have been filled with doctrinal problems but it was rich in Bible stories. When I realized the truth that many of these church leaders considered the creation story, along with many others, as allegorical only; it first horrified, then thrilled me. I reasoned logically, why stop there? Taking the same scissors in my own hands I cut out the gospels, miracles and ultimately, the need for salvation entirely. No creator? No accountability! Let’s have fun.
One decade and two marriages later, I was still enjoying my ‘freedom’ and found great sport in teasing a fundamentalist co-worker. Fortunately, my co-worker gently provided me something to read that rocked my little agnostic soul. This was in the 1980s and the evidential material was scant but still very good. Today there is overwhelming evidence and materials to support a young earth theory. Following are just a few examples from the vast amount of information available at the Institute for Creation Research (www.icr.org). What a disappointment that our church is engaging in this foolish debate so close to Christ’s return. The only one pleased with this is the enemy of souls.

Radiocarbon in Diamonds
Far from proving evolution, carbon-14 dating actually provides some of the strongest evidence for creation and a young earth. Radiocarbon (carbon-14 cannot remain naturally in substances for millions of years because it decays relatively rapidly. For this reason, it can only be used to obtain “ages” in the range of tens of thousands of years.

Scientists from the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) project examined diamonds that evolutionists consider to be 1-2 billion years old and related to the earth’s early history. Diamonds are the hardest know substance and extremely resistant to contamination through chemical exchange.

Yet the RATE scientists discovered significant detectable levels of radiocarbon in these diamonds, dating them at around 55,000 years-a far cry from the evolutionary billions!

[Edit:
There are some valid questions as to if the C14 recorded in diamonds is due to background contamination inherent within the process of detecting C14 itself. While there are some valid challenges to this potentiality, it still remains a fairly weak challenge to C14 dating assumptions.

In any case, regardless of if diamonds do or do not have trace amounts of 14C, the issue remains on how to explain the presence of real 14C in most samples of coal and oil and other organic remains of fossils. It seems like we are back to square one with the usual counter argument being “in situ contamination”. As noted by Dr. Paul Giem in his 2001 Origins paper, Carbon-14 Content of Fossil Carbon, the common argument of 14C production by Uranium within or near the coal sample releasing neutrons over time is not reasonable given the degree of 14C “contamination”. The amount of original radioactive material would have been prohibitive. And, perhaps the most striking problem, as noted by Dr. Giem, is:

“If neutron capture is a significant source of carbon-14 in a given sample [given that nitrogen-14 captures neutrons 110,000 times more effectively than does carbon-13], radiocarbon dates should vary wildly with the nitrogen content of the sample. I know of no such data.”

Therefore, the levels of 14C “contamination” that are generally observed could not reasonably be explained by in situ production of 14C – right? So, where does this leave us? with the in situ contamination argument…

There seems to be at least some validity to this argument, but how does one explain the nearly universal nature of this in situ contamination? As Dr. Giem notes, “It is difficult to imagine a nature process contaminating wood, whale bone, petroleum and coal, all roughly to the same extent. It is especially difficult to imagine all parts of a coal seam being contaminated equally.” ]

Recession of the Moon:

[Edit:
Moon recession arguments have several serious potential flaws and should not be used by creationists.

The closer Moon of the past had a stronger effect on the tides and therefore added to the rate of recession, as cited by AiG. However, large differences in the heights of the tides around different configurations of land masses would lessen the friction and therefore tending to cause a slower rate of recession. The arrangement of the continents in the past would have caused a decrease in tidal friction. The question then is, what is the net result of these factors, some of which increase the recession, and some of which decrease the recession? Mathematical modeling has shown that the overall tidal friction would have been less in the past, therefore causing SLOWER (not greater) rate for the Moon’s recession.

Also, the closer the Moon, the faster its orbit (according to Kepler’s Laws). The faster its orbit, the lower the tidal frequency, therefore the lower the recession rate. At some point, the Moon’s orbit would be in sync with the Earth’s rotation. Then there would be no energy dissipation and no recession. This shows that the Moon’s recession must have been slower in the past when the Moon was closer.

A slower recession of the Moon in the past as compared to today’s recession means that the Earth-Moon system could easily be over 4.5 billion years old without any significant problem.]

Tightly Folded Rock Strata:

[Edit:

Tightly folded rock strata can also be explained, without significant heating, as a process that occurred under very high levels of pressure from the overlying sedimentary rock. There is evidence of this in many places throughout the geologic column in the form of stretched out grains of rock under microscopic examination of these folded rock areas as well as stretched out fossils within these folded rocks.

The problem is that not all of these tightly folded rocks show such features. Nevertheless, there are many other features of the geologic column and fossil records that more clearly support their young age and rapid formation.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com]