It’s been a while since I have written anything, and I apologize. These last few months have been the hardest and best months of my life so far. I’ve been a little caught up, but now I have ample time to write. I’ve chosen to write about something that I am very passionate about. Keep in mind that if you are offended by what you read, you are well within your rights to close out the page and leave politely without posting harmful or belligerent comments. Also, I do not pretend to be an expert in any way on these topics. I merely am sharing information that I do believe is true, and I invite you to look up any of the information I provide to validate my claims. I want my readers to know that it is not my aim to bring others to faith through false testimony and through the manipulation of the facts. I may err, but know that it is an accident and not intended in any way. With all that said, I invite anyone who is curious or anyone who thinks science is the one and only explanation to keep reading. I will warn you, it does all get a bit technical but I will do my best to break everything down into simple terms. Now that all the precursors have been dealt with, read on and enjoy!
So this blog is intended for those who have rejected faith, or even more specifically Christianity because they hold the belief that science and faith can’t both be true. This blog is being written in hopes that maybe for those who have been unable to believe because they view faith and science as two opposing views to at least begin to further investigate the question of God.
Often times when I talk with people about God, I get questions like, “Doesn’t the bible directly contradict science?” or “Can the bible be trusted since science has repeatedly shown core elements such as the six-day creation of the universe to be false?” These questions, and questions like them come from the commonplace notion that you must choose between faith and science and they both can’t possibly be correct simultaneously. Indeed, I frequently receive from atheists and agnostics’ comments or assertions such as, “You can’t honestly believe in the bible and in science. They are clearly opposed to one another and if you are a Christian you cannot and must not concede to the truth of scientific proofs lest you risk allowing others to label you a hypocrite.” However, I would challenge all such notions and subjugate them all to careful scrutiny. When evangelizing, I often explain to people why I believe in God, and they quickly-almost automatically- ask me what I think of evolution. Much to their surprise, I ask, “Why does that stop me from believing in God?” After they get over the initial shock they tell me- and quite adamantly so- that evolution is directly opposed to the creation description in the bible! (Sometimes this is accompanied with unwarranted anger, obscene language and rarely I am told to go through the reproductive process with myself… which is quite absurd and impossible.) I’m not in the least bit surprised that most people believe this, nor am I surprised by anyone’s violent display towards me. Most people, even those who are not religious (which I am NOT- I will explain in another blog) know that in the book of Genesis, that God created everything that exists in six days.
If you don’t know this, in Genesis 1:31 it reads, “And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day.” It goes in Genesis 2 to explain that on the seventh day God rested and blessed and made Holy the seventh day, thus indicating the the 6th day was the last day of creation. Now, when I point this out during evangelism, people exclaim, “Aha! So you admit that the world was created in six days?!” I smile and say, “Yes.” To their joy they say, “Well don’t you know that the world is over 4.6 billion years old?!” Again, I smile and say, “Yes.”
Let’s rewind here because maybe some who are reading are confused. The agnostic is asking me about the truths that science has revealed, specifically the age of the earth and I am actually agreeing with him. This, at face value does not seem to be strange unless you know two things first. One: that if you add up the life-spans starting from Adam and Ever from the bible, and add 2000 years (the years since the death of Jesus) to that number, the summation of two results in the earth being approximately 6000 years old and Two: Radiocarbon dating has revealed the earth to be approximately 4.6 billion years old. Well, obviously, one is right and the other is wrong… right?
Most people stop reading the bible after discovering this. However there are several things that can still yet reconcile science and faith to one another. First of all, in Genesis 5:3 the author states that, “When Adam had lived for 130 years he fathered a son in his own likeness, his own image, and named him Seth.” Seth then “fathered Enosh, and so on. However since “fathered ” in a genealogy can mean, “fathered an ancestor of” the bible may not be giving an exhaustive list of who begat who and that the bible may be skipping multiple generations at a time. There is further biblical evidence of this in a comparison of the genealogy of Moses in Exodus 6:16 with that of Joshua in 1 Chronicles 7:23-27. Here the genealogy of Moses has undoubtedly been compressed. Even if we assume that every person after God says a mans days will be shorter lives to be 120 years, this would still not be an accurate way of dating the earth. Since the word “fathered” can mean “fathered an ancestor of” any number of generations and thusly cannot give us a concrete date of the earth. This is known as the Gap-theory for those who want more information on that specific topic.
Secondly, radiocarbon dating is the most accurate way of dating any ancient object known to-date. It is a repeatable and testable way of making an educated estimate of the age of the earth. As a Christian and as someone who accepts science, it is simply absurd to reject such a testable proof. There are some objections to this type of dating, but I will describe them in detail further on. For those that do not know, this is how it works.
Matter is the stuff that makes up all physical things in the universe. Matter is composed of atoms, defined by the number of protons in their nucleus. Hydrogen 1, Helium 2, etc. In most cases the number of neutrons in the nucleus is the same number as that of the protons, however there can be extra protons in certain cases. These extra protons don’t change the charge of an atom- all they basically do is add weight to the atom. An isotope is a term that describes an atom that has a different weight of the same atom. Carbon has the atomic number of 6 (6 being the number of protons in the nucleus) and with a matching number of neutrons in the nucleus; the mass number of this particular isotope of carbon- is 12 (written as 12c). A Carbon isotope can have an additional one or two particles in the nucleus and would be written as 13C and 14C.
These extra particles such as in 14C, make the atom unstable. This instability over LONG periods of time, are rectified and will toss off the extra particles. It does this by transforming the atom into a completely different atom. In Carbon 14 there are six protons and eight neutrons-, which causes the instability of the atom. To resolve this, one of the neutrons turns into a proton and an electron. Now the nucleus has a matching and stable seven-proton-seven-neutron arrangement. The unstable Carbon atom turns into a stable nitrogen atom. A stable atom is ones that can persist indefinitely.
These unstable atoms such as Carbon 14, are radioactive and decay (become a new stable atom) at such a fixed and predictable rate that they are like radioactive clocks that allow us to date rocks and other objects. Younger rocks have lots of radioactive particles and older rocks have less. Eventually, radioactivity will cease as all atoms become stable ones.
WHEW! I encourage you to take a break here. Eat a sammich, stretch out a bit and drink an 8-ounce glass of water!
Ok, feelin better? Hope so, cause we are going to jump right in!
Before the break, we were discussing how radiocarbon dating works. Unstable atoms become stable and different atoms over long periods of time at a regular, fixed rate that allows us to date objects with confidence. An instrument known as a Geiger counter can detect when a neuron converts into a proton and an electron. If the earth were infinitely old, then there would be no radioactivity available to be detected. If the earth were young- like 6000 years young- then there would be lots of atoms unconverted. Neither happens to be the case.
There are other radioactive atoms that can be used for dating. Uranium for example is important for determining the age of the earth. Uranium 235 converts to Lead-207 decays through a sequence of radioactive events.
That’s all fun and well, but how is this radioactive decay applied to make an accurate dating of the earth?
Scientists concern themselves with a term called half-life. Half-life is the time it takes for half of the unstable material to decay from its unstable starting point to its more stable final form. If element X has a half-life of one hour, and we start with forty atoms, in one hour there will be twenty atoms in element X. That is known as the half-life.
But.. Wouldn’t we need an element that has a much longer half-life than an hour? Yes you would! Luckily, such an element exists. Uranium 235 decays and creates only lead-207 which is a stable element. The steadily increasing excess of lead 207 chronicles the passage of time. The half-life of Uranium 235 is 700 million years. Longer but still not long enough! Another isotope Uranium 238 has a half-life of roughly 4.46 billion years. Much closer, but the age of the earth is still disputed and can range anywhere between 4 billion to 4.6 billion years old. To humans that .6 difference sounds like a big deal, but really it’s a blink of an eye on a universal time-scale.
I’ve thrown a lot of info your way. Take another break if you need to. This is a long read.
Back? Great! So now that I’ve let you know how radiocarbon dating and other forms of radioactive dating works, I should also let you know another sneaky little snippet. Even if these forms of rock dating weren’t available, 6000 years still would NOT be an accurate age of the earth! Sounds a bit like I’m trying to dig myself in a hole right? Nah, I’ll explain later why it’s really not a big deal. Truth is, there are various other forms of dating that signify that the earth is not a mere 6000 years old, but millions of years old! Here are a few examples… Observing the reversal of the magnetic field (Geologists have discovered rocks under the ocean with their magnetic fields changing direction at the mid Atlantic ridge. By counting the reversals we can date the earth to be 170 million years!), counting tree rings (11,000 years around the ice age), sediment in rock beds (can only be used up to thirty-five thousand years because the layers become too compressed to count), and lastly ice cores from Antarctica (740,000).
To reject the simpler methods of dating that anyone can do such as counting tree rings or layers in rock beds or layers in ice cores is not exuding true faith (regardless of which faith it is). That would be a lot like rejecting the fact that gravity causes objects to fall towards the earth. There simply no reason to look at the wealth of evidence gathered by scientists all over the world and still cling to the notion, not fact, that the earth is only 6000 years old.
WAIIIIT a second here bub. So you actually think the scientists are right? OK, well then see ya! Peace! A tout a l’heure! You my friend have just sided with science and can’t talk me into believing another word you say! … Can you? I can.
Truth of the matter is, the bible does not expressly determine the earth to be only 6000 years old. That was a calculation done many years ago by theologists taking the bible literally in regard to time. As we discussed in earlier paragraphs through the Gap-Theory, the bible does not give an exhaustive list of descendants. There is further evidence for this is the genealogy in Matthew 1:1-17 where Matthew actually omits three kings to make the genealogy shorter. Not to deceive but to prevent an eyesore for the reader. Even that short list hurts my eyes personally.
There are those who even in the face of all the evidence still fiercely believe in a 6000 year old earth. These are known as Young Earth Creationists (YEC’s). People who are proponents of this view argue that the dating techniques are not accurate. They conclude that scientists assume (and they do sort-of) that the radioactive decay of elements they use to date the earth is constant.
I personally believe these Christians rob themselves of the opportunity to be in awe of how complex God made everything on a scientific level. Scientists do assume the decay rate of radioactive elements to remain the same…. but they have no reason to believe otherwise. In fact, even at temperatures and pressures that literally rip the electrons off the atom, absolutely no changes in the nuclear decay rates have been observed! Now that’s something!
So you may ask, do you believe the earth is as old as scientists say? My answer: You bet!
You’re tired, your head hurts and you think I’m pulling your chain but I promise I’m going somewhere with this. Keep going!
The problem that YEC’s are plagued with is the literal reading of the bible. Understanding that the bible MUST be read in context always and the fact that if we took the entire bible literally, then there would be vast contradictions and the faith would have died out long ago. This change in the way we read the bible makes it possible to reconcile faith and science and for both to be right! I have two strong reasons to believe this is true.
First and foremost scripture of the bible makes it abundantly clear that God is supreme to everything. He is the creator of ALL things. You’re probably thinking, ok duh. But this is huge! He even created time! There was an eternity past… where time itself did not exist! The bible nowhere mentions where God creates time as we experience it. In Genesis it does use the word “day” but there is no reason to believe that a “day” was the same amount of time as it is now. This sounds like a ripe bowl of bat guano but let me assure you, I don’t simply believe it because I want it to be true! There is scriptural evidence for this claim. This has even been argued amongst theologists for decades and is not something that can be nicely and neatly concluded. Consider 2 Peter 3:8-10. “But do not overlook this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is a thousand years, and a thousand years, and a thousand years as a day. The Lord is not slow to fulfill his promise as some count slowness but is patient towards you, not wishing that any should perish but that all should reach repentance.”
Remember how I said before that the bible MUST be read in context? Feel free to read 2 Peter 3! He is talking about the future judgment of all people and he is telling his audience to remember the predictions of the prophets concerning how the faithful will be treated in the last days. Then halfway through the verse, he begins talking about the past and how the heavens existed long ago. He asks his audience to remember the flood of Noah. Immediately after in 2 Peter 3:8 he describes that time is different for God! How can a thousand years and a day be the same to God? Well if He is outside of time then it’s very possible. Don’t take my summarization of 1 Peter 3 as Gospel truth, read it yourself! I’m not trying to deceive you!
If you allow that a “day” for God is not the same 24-hour “days” then you can understand a day to be much longer than the days we experience. There is more evidence for time being different for God. I wouldn’t have faith off of only one source! Psalm 90:4 reads: For a thousand years in your sight are but as yesterday when it is past, or as a watch (or dream) in the night. Again check out the context of that Psalm verse understanding that David was both a king and a prophet.
There are obviously other issues concerning faith and science and I can’t possibly tackle all of them. I’ve merely shown you an example where science and faith support one another. Bigger issues such as evolution and is considered one of the hot topics can be discussed at length in perhaps another blog. Of course, it would help if I knew I had readers who actually wanted the information! So please, leave comments, questions and leave constructive feedback! Thanks so much to all that read and God bless you all!
The majority of this information can be found online through simple researching. The Language of Science and Faith by Karl Giberson & Francis Collins gave me a great understanding of radiocarbon dating and I indeed paraphrased the very book as a way to convey complicated scientific terms to larger crowds. I do not claim any rights to the book, and I in no way intend to gain any money from providing this information. The rights belong solely to the publishers, authors and editors of that book. There is original content from me and I would argue most of it is my own original material ( in terms of wording not factual information) but credit is due to Giberson and Collins in their description of radiocarbon dating. Thank you sincerely and I hope I haven’t upset anyone by providing this information.