Superman and the Myth of Carbon-14 Dating

Eric Lyons

Creation vs. EvolutionGeology

One of my three-year-old son’s favorite cartoons is one that I grew up watching in the early 1980s—Superfriends. My son thoroughly enjoys watching Superman, Batman, Green Lantern, and the rest of the Superfriends clean up the weekly messes made by the thirteen members of the Legion of Doom. Recently, however, after watching an episode with my son, I realized that even the Superfriends propagate a “mess” every now and then. In one scene, Superman dug up an object underneath the Hall of Justice and subjected it to radiocarbon dating. Allegedly, the sample of dirt tested was 70 million years old. The cartoon heroes were certain of their findings because the sample of dirt had been tested using the carbon-14 dating method. Even though most children (and adults) who watch Superfriends (or similar cartoons) have very little, if any, knowledge of radiocarbon dating, they are sure to pick up on its “factual” findings.

Without going into detail of the ins and outs of carbon-14 dating, consider one basic truth about this dating method that few people (especially in the film industry), it seems, have been taught: radiocarbon dating is totally ineffective in measuring time when dealing with millions of years. In his 2000 book, Genes, People, and Languages, renowned geneticist of Stanford University, Luigi Cavalli-Sforza, in a discussion on the theory of human evolution, commented on radiocarbon dating, stating: “The most crucial dates in modern human evolution are unfortunately beyond the range of the radiocarbon method, which has a limit of about 40,000 years” (p. 61, emp. added). Staunch evolutionist Richard Dawkins also dealt with the limitations of radiocarbon dating a few years ago in his highly touted book, The Blind Watchmaker. He was even more critical of this dating method than was Cavalli-Sforza, saying,

Different kinds of radioactive decay-based geological stopwatches run at different rates. The radiocarbon stopwatch buzzes round at a great rate, so fast that, after some thousands of years, its spring is almost wound down and the watch is no longer reliable. It is useful for dating organic material on the archaeological/historical timescale where we are dealing in hundreds or a few thousands of years, but it is no good for the evolutionary timescale where we are dealing in millions of years (1986, p. 226 emp. added).

Although the idea that radiocarbon dating is an effective evolutionary dating method has been publicized for many years, both evolutionists and creationists stand in agreement that this dating method, which can be used only to date organic samples that once were living, is totally ineffective in measuring the alleged millions or billions of years of the evolutionary timetable. [In truth, even when dating things that are relatively young, carbon-14 dating is imperfect, and always based upon certain assumptions. (See “Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon & Tree-Ring Dating.”)] Unfortunately, because the “million year” myth of radiocarbon dating has been spread so widely for so many years—even being perpetuated by Superman in both the twentieth and twenty-first centuries—it likely will take a long time before the truth of its ineffectiveness is heard and accepted.

REFERENCES

Cavalli-Sforza, Luigi (2000), Genes, Peoples, and Languages (New York: North Point Press).

Dawkins, Richard (1986), The Blind Watchmaker (New York: W.W. Norton).

---

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Born Among History

Eric Lyons

Creation vs. EvolutionInspiration of the BibleFactual AccuracyFactual Accuracy

How do we know that the New Testament is not a book of myths and lies? How can people born 1,900 years this side of its completion have total confidence in the New Testament’s accuracy? What is it that causes so many of us to believe in the truthfulness of this book?

One thing that makes the New Testament such a unique work is how many times the events recorded therein are verified by other independent historical witnesses. Repeatedly, history has shown itself to be an ally, rather than an enemy, to the twenty-seven books that make up the New Testament. As a person reads through these books, he will find names of kings and queens, governors and priests. He will read of cities and villages, and sometimes even learn of the roads and passageways that connected them. The New Testament was born among historical people, places, and events, which allows twenty-first-century readers opportunities to inquire about its trustworthiness.

Consider just one example. As a non-Christian reads through the New Testament book of Acts, he comes to the account where Herod is addressing a group of people from Tyre and Sidon (Acts 12:20-23). In verses 21-23, he reads:

So on a set day Herod, arrayed in royal apparel, sat on his throne and gave an oration to them. And the people kept shouting, “The voice of a god and not of a man!” Then immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died.

Perhaps the person reading this account begins struggling with whether or not “this whole Christian thing is for me,” and whether there is any evidence that corroborates the information found in the New Testament. How much more open to the truth of God’s Word might this skeptical gentlemen be if he could come in contact with the vast amount of historical data that supports the facts found therein? In this particular case, he might find it very helpful to learn that a well-educated, first-century Jewish historian by the name of Josephus gave a detailed account of Herod’s death in his work, The Antiquities of the Jews (19:8:2). Notice how the two accounts stand side by side.

• Where Luke wrote that Herod was “arrayed in royal apparel,” Josephus wrote that “he put on a garment made wholly of silver, and of a contexture truly wonderful.”
• Where Luke wrote that “the people kept shouting, ‘The voice of a god and not of a man!,’ ” Josephus mentioned that “his flatterers cried out…that he was a god; and they added, ‘Be thou merciful to us; for although we have hitherto reverenced thee only as a man, yet shall we henceforth own thee as superior to mortal nature.’ Upon this the king did neither rebuke them, nor reject their impious flattery.”
• And finally, where Luke recorded: “Immediately an angel of the Lord struck him, because he did not give glory to God. And he was eaten by worms and died,” Josephus wrote: “A severe pain also arose in his belly, and began in a most violent manner. He therefore looked upon his friends, and said, ‘I whom you call a god, am commanded presently to depart this life….’ [H]is pain was become violent…. And when he had been quite worn out by the pain in his belly for five days, he departed this life.”

Although the accounts of Luke and Josephus were written independently, regarding the death of Herod they agree in all of the essentials.

Acts 12:20-23 represents only one of many examples in Scripture where secular history upholds its reliability. Over the past 1,900 years, the Bible has been examined more critically than any other book in the world, and yet it repeatedly is found to be historically accurate. Such accuracy surely gives the skeptic something important to consider in his examination of Scripture.

REFERENCES

Josephus, Flavius (1987 edition), Antiquities of the Jews, in The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, transl. William Whiston (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson).

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

 

Does Methodological Naturalism Nullify Evidence for Christianity?

Caleb Colley, Ph.D.

Doctrinal MattersExistence of GodFaith and Reaso

Skeptics of the Bible sometimes suggest that the claims of Christianity (e.g., the creation of the Universe, the resurrection of Jesus) cannot be supported by any facts from the historical record or by any scientific data, because these disciplines operate on the basis of methodological naturalism.1 Allegedly, any scholarly discipline that is methodologically naturalistic can provide no support for a claim that a miracle occurred. Is this the case?

Defining Methodological Naturalism

Methodological naturalism is the practice of seeking only natural causes of scientific phenomena.2 Admittedly, some disciplines typically are defined by the quest to provide and understand explanations in terms of natural regularities. In this regard they are religiously neutral. And, in certain circumstances, it is reasonable to suggest that 
“[w]ithin science, we should adopt methodological naturalism, according to which answers to questions are sought within nature, within the contingent created order. For example, in describing how two charged electrodes separate hydrogen and oxygen gas when placed in water, the ‘God hypothesis’ is both unnecessary and out of place.”3

The degree to which methodological naturalism is used varies from field to field and from one practitioner to another. Many scientists allow the possibility of supernatural explanations and even operate professionally as theists or “Creation scientists.” And, many historians publicly support the historical fact of Jesus’ resurrection. But insofar as miracles are not currently observed, many natural scientists in their professional capacity do not engage with the possibility that there is a supernatural realm.4 Similarly, many historians operate in the context of professional standards that restrict them from reaching conclusions that any supernatural event is a fact of history.

That said, the religiously neutral data of the natural sciences can be marshaled to support premises in an argument that leads to a theological conclusion, such as the historical event of a miracle. Consider some examples:

• Natural science has provided rich evidence to support the premise that the Universe began to exist, to the degree that the beginning of the Universe is taken as a datum by practically all concerned.5 The premise that the Universe began to exist supplies a step in an argument to the conclusion that God exists.6
• The behavior of electrodes is not a directly theological question, but why there are electrodes, oxygen, or water, or any matter or energy at all, is a question that introduces a supernatural explanation.
• The statement, “Dead bodies do not rise naturally from the dead,” is confirmed by natural science,  and also is a necessary premise (even if taken for granted and left implicit) in any argument for the resurrection of Jesus as a miraculous event.7

Whatever the professional standards of any academic discipline may be, each person still is faced with the question of whether it is reasonable to believe the supernatural claims of Christianity. What a historian or scientist is allowed to publish or discuss in a professional society is one thing; what he believes on the basis of the evidence provided by his discipline is another.

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Metaphysical Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that metaphysical naturalism (sometimes called philosophical or ontological naturalism) is true. Metaphysical naturalism is the view that nature, meaning “physical reality” or “spatiotemporal reality,” is all that exists (thus God, angels, demons, heaven, hell, and human spirits do not exist).8 For example, the agnostic New Testament scholar Bart Ehrman cited methodological naturalism in the current practice of history as evidence that historical data cannot support Jesus’ resurrection in any way.9 The claim that metaphysical naturalism is true begs the question: What evidence is there that naturalism is true? In the discipline of philosophy, for example, the non-existence of God is not merely assumed prima facie, but rather the question of God’s existence has been one of the major topics of philosophy ever since Socrates.10 (Thankfully, the last 60 years or so have seen a blossoming of theism in many philosophy departments.)11 

Methodological Naturalism Does Not Imply Epistemological Naturalism

Unfortunately, some have taken the fact that methodological naturalism governs certain disciplines as evidence that epistemological naturalism is true. Epistemological naturalism (or “scientism”) is the view that science is the only source of knowledge. As an example of epistemological naturalism, consider the words of Jerry A. Coyne, the biologist from the University of Chicago who has published widely in support of organic evolution:

[T]ruth is simply what is: what exists in reality and can be verified by rational and independent observers. It is true that DNA is a double helix, that the continents move, and that the Earth revolves around the Sun. It is not true, at least in the dictionary sense, that somebody had a revelation from God. The scientific claims can be corroborated by anyone with the right tools, while a revelation, though perhaps reflecting someone’s real perception, says nothing about reality, for unless that revelation has empirical content, it cannot be verified.12

Yet it is easy to see that epistemological naturalism is incorrect, for at least two reasons:13

First, because epistemological naturalism is self-refuting: The claim that science is the only source of knowledge is itself non-scientific, unverifiable by observation. Second, because epistemological naturalism is overly restrictive. It would lead to the abandonment of vast tracts of knowledge, including science itself. For science is based on non-scientific—but entirely reasonable—presuppositions: We believe in the reality of the past, the external world, and the laws of logic, but there is no observational “proof” for the reality of these things. As John C. Lennox observed, scientism leads people to think that “scientific” means the same as “rational,” but clearly such an equation is false!14 Finally, it should be noted that even the epistemological naturalist should believe in God, because the scientific evidence overwhelmingly points to a Creator and Designer of the Universe.

Conclusion

Methodological naturalism is a practical reality in our world today, but it should not be taken to imply that the disciplines operating on this basis provide no usable data for developing apologetical arguments. And, methodological naturalism does not imply the truth of metaphysical naturalism or epistemological naturalism. Each position must be judged on its own merits, based on the evidence.

Endnotes

1 Cf. S. Joshua Swamidass (2021), “Why Methodological Naturalism?,” https://peacefulscience.org/articles/methodological-naturalism/.

2 Alvin Plaintinga (1997), “Methodological Naturalism?,” Origins and Design, 18[1]:18; Lok-Chi Chan (2021), “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism,” Oxford Studies in Philosophy of Mind, 1:222.

3 J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig (2003), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press), p. 358.

4 On the definition of miracles and their cessation, see David L. Lipe (2022), “Miracles in the Church,” Equipping the Saints (Searcy, AR: Stewart), pp. 336-344.

5 Alexander Vilenkin (2007), Many Worlds in One (New York: Hill and Wang), p. 176.

6 E.g., Jeff Miller (2016), “The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God,” Apologetics Press, https://apologeticspress.org/the-cosmological-argument-for-the-existence-of-god-5300/.

7 Cf. William Lane Craig and James Crossley (2007), “Was Jesus Bodily Raised from the Dead?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/was-jesus-bodily-raised-from-the-dead-debate.

8 Chan, “On Characterizing Metaphysical Naturalism.”

9 Bart Ehrman and William Lane Craig (2006), “Is There Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus? The Craig-Ehrman Debate,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-there-historical-evidence-for-the-resurrection-of-jesus-the-craig-ehrman.

10 Plato (1997), Complete Works, ed. John M. Cooper (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett), note the dialogues Euthyphro; Apology; Republic.

11 William Wood (2021), “Philosophy and Christian Theology,” Stanford University, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/christiantheology-philosophy/.

12 Jerry A. Coyne (2015),Faith vs. Fact: Why Science and Religion are Incompatible (New York: Penguin), p. 29.

13 These are adapted from William Lane Craig and Alex Rosenberg (2013), “Is Faith in God Reasonable?,” https://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/debates/is-faith-in-god-reasonable.

14 John C. Lennox (2019), Can Science Explain Everything? (Oxford: The Good Book), p. 23.

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.

The Silencing of God (#2): Dr David Miller Video 55 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/the-silencing-of-god-2-political-documents-video-3681/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided and enjoy.

 WHY PEOPLE LIVED SO LONG IN GENESIS

From the very first pages of Scripture, the ages of Adam’s world rise like towering monuments of truth. Adam reaches 930 years in Genesis 5:5. Methuselah stands at 969 in Genesis 5:27. Noah steps into the Flood at 600 in Genesis 7:6. Critics scoff, but the Bible does not tremble. These lifespans fit perfectly within the world God originally called very good.

In the beginning, humanity walked with bodies unscarred by the genetic decay we see today. God formed Adam and Eve with flawless genetic information, untouched by the avalanche of mutations that now burdens every generation. Modern geneticists describe this downward slide as genetic entropy. Scripture told us long ago that mankind is wearing out. But in those first generations after creation, the damage was minimal. Their bodies resisted aging, resisted disease, and resisted the slow corruption that now clings to us.

Genesis 1:6 to 7 describes waters above the expanse. Many creation scientists believe this represents a pre Flood vapor canopy or at least a radically different atmosphere that shielded the earth. Such a world would have blocked harmful radiation that now strikes our DNA and accelerates death. Combined with a stable climate and ideal living conditions, early humanity lived in an environment designed for strength, vitality, and remarkable longevity.

History supports this pattern. Ancient records like the Sumerian King List speak of rulers living hundreds of years before a great flood, then a sharp decline afterward. The details may differ, but the storyline is the same. Long lives before the catastrophe. Shorter lives after. Even the echoes of pagan cultures cannot silence the biblical pattern.

After the Flood, the world changed. The climate hardened. The protective environment collapsed. Genetic damage accelerated through population bottlenecks. Lifespans plunged from the 400s in Noah’s sons, to the 200s in their descendants, to 175 in the days of Abraham. Exactly what we would expect in a world now groaning under the curse.

The long lives in Genesis are not myth. They are history. They match the Bible. They harmonize with genetics. They align with ancient testimony. They fit the world we see wearing down around us every single day. Humanity began in strength. Sin brought decay. And Scripture has recorded the truth with perfect accuracy from the very beginning.

The long lives recorded in Genesis are not a myth—they are consistent with a biblical understanding of genetics, climate, and history. A perfect creation, minimal genetic damage, and a sheltered early Earth environment provide a clear explanation for the incredible ages of the pre-Flood patriarchs. Even secular science acknowledges that DNA is slowly breaking down and that environmental factors shorten lifespans. Genesis simply records what the first humans experienced: a world that began perfect, where people lived for centuries, but has been steadily wearing down ever since.

Accept All of God’s Word Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/accept-all-of-gods-word/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Can You Be Saved Like the Thief on the Cross? Video 4 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/can-you-be-saved-like-the-thief-on-the-cross/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

Dinosaur Soft Tissue and Evolution’s Timetable Video 5 min

https://apologeticspress.org/video/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-evolutions-timetable/ 

Click on the link above and follow the paths provided.

 

Why Seven Days?

Kyle Butt, D.Min.

Creation vs. EvolutionInspiration of the BibleFactual AccuracyFactual Accuracy

Have you ever wondered why, all over the world, in civilization after civilization, we find people scheduling their lives based on a seven-day week? The origins of other units of time are easy to understand. For instance, a year is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun. A day is the amount of time it takes for the Earth to make a complete rotation on its axis. A month is the approximate time between new moons. And seasons are determined based on an equinox or solstice. But no celestial, lunar, or planetary movement or system accounts for our seven-day week.

A brief look back into history shows that the seven-day week has prevailed as the paramount routine for humanity in general as far back as historical records can go. Although some societies and cultures did use weeks other than the seven-day week, it still has stubbornly maintained its preeminence. Today, the seven-day week is universally accepted, even though the French attempted a ten-day week during the French Revolution in 1791, and the Soviet Union, as late as the early 1900s, attempted a five-day week—to no avail.

Where did the seven-day week originate? The most plausible explanation comes from the book of Genesis. The first chapter of Genesis explains that God created the entire Universe is six, literal twenty-four hour days. The beginning of chapter two states, “And on the seventh day God ended His work which He had done, and He rested on the seventh day from all His work which He had done” (2:2).

Exodus 20:8-11 gives an explanation as to why God framed His creative activity according to a seven-day week. This passage teaches us that God worked six days and rested the seventh day in order to provide a pattern for the Jewish workweek. Because God worked six days and rested on the seventh day, the Jews were instructed to do the same.

In truth, an all-powerful God could have created the Universe in seven seconds, seven years, seven decades, or seven million years. God’s week of seven days, however, was given purposefully to man as a pattern to follow. This pattern has prevailed for several thousand years. The Sun, Moon, and stars were given “for signs and seasons, and for days and years” (Genesis 1:14), but not for the week. The week was instituted specifically by God, based on His creative activity. The seven-day week is yet another testimony to the truthfulness and accuracy of the Genesis account of Creation

REPRODUCTION & DISCLAIMERS: We are happy to grant permission for this article to be reproduced in part or in its entirety, as long as our stipulations are observed.