Flaws in Darwinism and The Big Bang Theory:
Carbon 14 dating is used to date organisms (not rocks; since rocks contain varying amounts of carbon).
The idea is that organisms contain an equal amount of c12 (a stable element) and c14 (an unstable - or radioactive element) while an organism is alive.
But, when an organism dies, this ratio changes (because c14 is radioactive, so it is declining). This ratio yields a very accurate age.
However, this age dating method is only reliable if scientists make the following assumptions: An equal amount of carbon14 existed at the beginning (during the creation of the organism), and for the entire duration, the ratio was roughly constant.
However, it is entirely possible, if we had a Noahanic flood, billions of tons of carbon were buried in the Earth. This is one factor that would have changed the C14/c12 ratio. For more information on C14 dating, see
Another major factor is the rate in which cosmic radiation hits the Earth. The scientific assumption carbon dating relies on is that our ionosphere was always the same thickness.
The c14 ratio is critically affected by cosmic radiation, as the rate of radiation that reaches the inside of the ionosphere drives the amount of c14 an organism receives.
Another influence to the c14 ratio is the Earths magnetic field. In carbon dating it is assumed this has always been constant. However strong evidence suggests the magnetic field has been weakening. This changes the c14 ratio also.
Finally, depending on the tree ratio that existed between the time life was created and now, the carbon ratio would be different than today. (This is interesting because with Darwinism, plants would have evolved to trees over billions of years, yet with Genesis, trees were created within the first 3 days).
With all of these assumptions in the model, it can be deduced that we did not know the starting ratio of c14/c12 - with relative accuracy - beyond 3000 years.
Therefore in our opinion it is impossible to come to a conclusion that any carbon 14 dating is valuable at more than 3000 years.
For more information on the findings by the RATE group, please see
Darwinism requires billions of years for it to yield evolutionary changes that lead to humans. This timeline requirement (3~ billion years) is in direct conflict to God's duration from Adam (6000 years) to today. Therefore, if it can be proven that human life existed in the thousands of years (since Adam), Darwinism fails (as it had no time to evolve). Please keep that in mind as we investigate further.
Darwin assumed cells were simple. He looks at cells as if they randomly made improvements that led to more complex organisms. However today, we now know that all cells are complex, they have systems that include Information Processing, Storage, Retrieval, Artifical Languages, Coding/Decoding systems, error detection, correction, proofreading, quality control, digital embedding, production of chemicals as in a factory, distribution, parcel addressing, assembly and self reproduction. One of the key things to understand about cells is the DNA source code may change from organism to organism, but the alphabet (the DNA language) did not change, it contains different instructions per organism. This means that the code that enables the organism to reproduce was present in the earliest and simplest ringworm, and in the Ape and the Human. Remember this point, as it takes an intelligent designer to integrate the reproduction system first, in contrast to an organism that involved to contain a reproduction system.
Darwinism lacks intermediate fossils. This is one point that I personally mention to Atheists; if Darwinism were true, then why don't we have millions of retarded, illegitimate, malfunctioning, failed animals and monsters with strange appendages and useless features? We certainly didnt jump directly from non-advanced to useful without a billion dead organism versions did we? This is called Darwins Hopeful Monsters. However, he said himself "Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain." No, it does not, and our archeologists do not have record of the intermediate fossils. But most assuredly they found the opposite: A Cambrian explosion of fossils of every type, all within a certain time range. We don't find a pigeon changing to a hawk, or a mutated bird-human. The Cambrian explosion shows almost all fossils at once without predecessors (with the exception being 33 phyla, these are plants/fungi).
Remember that the DNA language, the alphabet of codes, is the same alphabet in apes, humans, roundworms and all organisms. The source code may be 98% shared between humans and apes, and 50% between human and dog, and 1% between human and roundworm, but the DNA language itself is the same. The coding system is equal - a 4 letter alphabet, double helixes, and a complex source code that explains to a cell how to form a factory that creates protiens, and forms itself. Note that it is a true factory, in that the cell creates proteins based on instructions coded in the DNA. This is important to understand, because this means that evolution did not create DNA. The DNA was there in the beginning, along with the manufacturing plant, the alphabet, the source code and the language.
No complex language has ever come from anything but a living mind. There are no exceptions to this. It is provably true that DNA is a language; it has a consistent alphabet, source code and a manufacturing plant. It is also a highly complex language that does not show evidence that it evolved, yet it shows evidence it existed in the most basic organism from the beginning. Therefore the language of DNA must have come from our creator. (This dilemma is similar to the question, If God Exists who created the Creator? This question is similar to : If DNA existed with a complex language in the beginning, who created it?) For more information about Perry Marshall's work, his work that gives our divine creator credit for creating DNA/RNA and link between creation of Information as a distinct entity in the original DNA, please see his Evolution blog
Matter, Energy and Information are all distinct elements that came from somewhere.
It is true that DNA/RNA is an advanced communication system, with a decoding/encoding system with values pointing to databases of proteins.
There is no evidence that a communication system with encoding and decoding can be designed outside a concious mind.
Could DNA have evolved given enough time and necessary chemicals? Evolution requires replication, and replication requires DNA to exist first.
Flaws in the Big Bang:
The big bang model is a strong co-supporter of Darwinism (and vice versa) as they both support each others claims of a 3 billion year old Earth. If the Big Bang is wrong, obviously Darwinism is wrong, and if Darwinism is wrong, the Big Bang is competing against Genesis. Our job is not to discredit the physics behind the model, just to point out the individual assumptions used in the inputs of the Big Bang that could show how potentially fragile the model is.
The Big Bang model relies on the following inputs, some of which may be considered assumptions: Isotropy (that space is always uniform), Superclusters (existing now and before), Lack of Antimatter, The Dark matter and dark energy ratio, the cosmological constant, the expansion rate of the universe and if it was always expanding, the observable size of the universe vs the actual size over time.
In the Robertson Walker cosmological model, we require Quintessence, the hypothetical dark energy scalar field, to exist to explain the observed accelerating rate of expansion of the universe. This means that we assume the universe was always expanding at this rate (but could it be possible that God set this constant for us to be bound to at a certain time, and what we observe is the reaction to creating the Earth in Genesis?)
Another quite large assumption in the big bang is the existence of Superclusters. These are extremely large clusters of Galaxies such as Andromeda and the Milky Way that obviously exist because we can observe them. But the existence of these, and the current levels of dark energy is what scientistis believe cause the expansion rate (IE the expansion of superclusters that we live in reveals the cosmological constant) and the assumption that our universe has always expanded. However, since our observable portion of the universe is small, it is quite possible that in areas without superclusters, a contraction could have or is occurring on the macroscopic scale.
The lack of anti-matter is not understood by physicists today. It is understood that the big bang should have created equal amounts of anti-matter and matter (since both types share equal mass), but our observable universe is almost entirely matter. But yet only one particle per billion of antimatter exists! This anomaly is still a mystery to this day.
The dark matter and dark energy ratio is observed by our physicists and computed in the model. But more is unknown about dark energy than known. We know that 68% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter makes up 27%. Normal matter makes up 5%. So, the red flag here is that if the theoretical model has 3 static values programmed in : 68, 27, 5, is it possible that this mixture has not been constant over 6000, or 3.8 billion years? Learn more about dark matter and dark energy
Physicists admit the problem with measuring the cosmological constant, and reconciling it to the vaccuum of space, or the amount of energy in the vacuum energy, the reconciling using todays math yields an error of 120 orders of magnitude, or : "the largest discrepancy between theory and experiment in all of science" and "the worst theoretical prediction in the history of physics." See
for more information.
One other issue that arises when evaluating the big bang theory is the observable size of the universe is only 93 billion light years. Various scientists observed between 13 billion and 180 billion light years. If we are unable to observe even a fraction of the universe, then it can be assumed the Robertson Walker model has an incomplete picture of the macroscopic view of the inverse, and potentially an incorrect input that measures its age. For more information on our observable universe, see
If all of these assumptions are constant, the big bang yields an Earth age of approx 3-10 billion years old.
Could DNA have evolved given enough time and necessary chemicals?
Evolution requires replication, and replication requires DNA to exist first.
Why? Because our cells have a built in replication system (allowing them to divide and expand), and a manufacturing system (allowing them to make new protiens and create new cells), and this replication system existed in the earliest models. If we can prove that the early models had the language of DNA that has not evolved, then DNA did not evolve, it was gifted to the first cells. Therefore, life did not evolve, it was created.
Can we rely on the Big Bang theory to age the universe at over 6000 years old?
The big bang model assumes that we can observe the macroscopic universe and create a model from its behavior. However, in reality we don't even know what percentage of the universe we can actively observe, let alone if the measurements from the sliver we are observing are accurate (see observable size of universe above).
Therefore, we cannot with confidence conclude the universe is over 6000 years old.
God's book contains evidence of a Divine Creator (For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood from His workmanship, so that men are without excuse. Romans 1:20)
An Integlligent designer who has spoken through the scribes and wrote the Bible from his Divine Nature created life, and the evidence of his Power and Godhead cannot be denied.
©2021 - The BiblePay Foundation