Creationists have predicted, on the basis of Biblical information, that no living things would be found on Mars. Another prediction is that the world would be seen to be still drying out after the Flood. It is pointed out that both of those predictions have been fulfilled.
Creationists have predicted that it would be found that dripstones, stalactites and stalagmites, can form very quickly under some conditions. Moreover, they have been able to find some instances in which such rapid growth is actually happening. Here another piece of evidence is presented. Stalactites have been found growing rapidly in a cave-like environment. Some suggestions are made about circumstances which may have influenced the rate of growth.
Twenty or so years ago, a discerning Creationist - or another - person might have predicted that interest in former catastrophies would increase greatly. And that is what has happened. But the matter has come to be viewed in several different ways. Creationists know that there was one great catastrophe: the Flood. There are secular catastrophists, of whom Velikovsky is surely the best known. And many uniformitarians are admitting that the uniformity may have been punctuated by an occasional catastrophe. In this article the implications of, and relation between, these three points of view are investigated.
Radiocarbon dating was introduced in 1946 by W. F. Libby, who was recognized with a Nobel Chemistry Prize fourteen years later (1960). From the beginning, many variables which should be considered in using the technique were recognized, several by Libby and his co-workers.
- Cosmic ray flux through the atmosphere
- C-14 concentration in the ocean and atmosphere
- C-14 decay half-life
- Migration of carbon atoms into or out of earth materials
- Local variation in carbon isotope concentrations, called fractionation
These variables will be discussed briefly from the viewpoint of creationist contributions to the subject.
The radiocarbon dating method has been claimed to provide considerable support for evolutionary theories of the past which conflict with the Biblical record of the Earth's early history. This paper seeks to answer the question: how can the radiocarbon activity measurements be understood in a way that is consistent with the Biblical framework of history? The evidences for the non-equilibrium theory of radiocarbon variations are discussed and are shown to give the theory a sound theoretical foundation. The prediction that atmospheric C-14 activities have increased with time has been tested by studying the results obtained from known-age samples. Consistency between theory and observation is found for the period of the last 2600 years, but not before this. It follows that either the non-equilibrium model is wrong, or that the chronologies of Ancient Egypt and of the tree-ring sequences are in need of major revision. Evidences from Biblical archaeology which strongly suggest the need of a revision are briefly discussed. Using a revised chronological scheme, the C-14 activities of the archaeological samples have been recalculated, and it is found that the results are consistent wit the non-equilibrium prediction. Consequently, the theory is self-consistent, and this promotes confidence in the general approach. The form of a creationistic calibration curve for C-14 dates is suggested, so that use may be made of the dating system when re-evaluating the facts relevant to prehistory.
It is commonly held that the pre-flood vapor canopy shielded the earth form cosmic radiation and also reduced surface ozone levels. These effects supposedly contributed to the longevity of the antediluvian patriarchs. However, radiation studies and research in molecular biology seems to rule this out. Even if the earth were 100 percent shielded from radiation and if ozone levels in the pre-flood world were zero, no appreciable improvement would have resulted. Studies in molecular biology, however, do suggest that possibly certain specific enzymes may have been present prior to the flood and absent afterward, their disappearance resulting in the reduction of longevity noted in the exponential decay curve of lifetimes in Genesis 11. Also, increased atmospheric pressure under such a canopy would conceivably have had a minor effect on longevity and also on gigantism.
The amount of data uncovered by creationists in recent years warrants application of such information in various branches of science, of which one is in the field of plant and animal taxonomy. This branch of science is currently totally evolution-oriented, as is seen particularly in the determination of species, since the evolutionist considers each species the newly evolved kind. Nevertheless, there is no overall consensus as to what constitutes a species. This article lists a number of instances in which taxonomists ignore their own definition of species. A creationist's approach to taxonomy is proposed, by establishing a category which would encompass all variants of each created "kind". This category should be called baramin, its position in the classification system varying for each species. All organisms would be placed in a particular baramin, its position in the classification system varying for each species. All organisms would be placed in a particular baramin category whose eggs and sperm, when brought together, can produce true fertilization, thus making this the one truly biological category. Morphologically similar organisms could also be tentatively placed in the same category pending further studies.
Everyone believes that for every contingent being or event, i.e., one which might have been otherwise, there must be a cause. Philosophers have sometimes called this the principle of sufficient reason, or universal causality. The world around us is clearly contingent, hence one may look for a cause for it. Creationists see God as the Cause; and many natural theologians, such as Paley, have considered this fact so certain that they have gone on to deduce things about God's nature from the Creation. The evolutionary dogma, on the other hand, is really a denial of any sufficient reason. It is pointed out also that many, not only among the people in general, but also among students and faculty at universities, are disillusioned with evolution. The opportunity for Creationism is apparent.
The recent book, Creation and Flood, by Dr. Davis A. Young, may be considered an example of a position which many have adopted: that of trying to have Christianity and science each autonomous in its own realm. However, such an attempt, when examined closely, shows many weaknesses in respect to both theology and science. Some aspects of the matter are discussed here. It will be understood that this article is not intended as an attack on Dr. Young, nor on his book. Rather, it is a critical investigation of a notion which has been around for some time, but of which Young's book is one of the latest expositions.
In scientific work, even as in everyday life, one proceeds on the basis, not only of established facts, but also of unproven assumptions. This is inevitable, and by no means blameworthy. What is blameworthy is to refuse occasionally to examine the assumptions, or worse still to try to prevent those who would examine them from getting a hearing. The evolutionary dogma, in particular, depends on many unproven assumptions; and thee has been too often been a reluctance on the part of those who propound the view to examine the underlying assumptions critically.
The postulated very large angular deflections of the earth's axis due to gravitational encounters, say with Venus or Mars, as espoused by many rationalistic catastrophism, most eminently by Velikovsky, are analyzed and found wanting. Useful analytic expressions are derived and are also applied against the alleged accuracy of astronomical dating and Copernicanism. Large Angular deflections seem to be possible only if a large body were to be captured for a considerable period of time. It will be understood that this article is concerned only with possible changes in the direction of the earth's axis. Possible changes in the orbit, as some catastrophists have proposed for the earth or for other bodies, are not investigated here.