Noah’s ark has been in the news again recently. You can read about the latest development here. As always, there are going to be different reactions to a story like this. Some will instantly think that this is proof that what they believe is true. Others will question the legitimacy of the finding and say the evidence is faulty. Either way, one of the things about these kinds of stories is the emphasis placed on carbon dating. Carbon dating has been used by proponents of those who believe in the historical accuracy of the Bible and also by those who try to disprove it. Here is an example from the most recent Noah’s Ark story:
“Yeung told the South China Morning Post that a piece of wood obtained from the site was dated as 4,800 years old by a carbon-dating method in Iran. This matches with the range of years stated in the Bible, suggesting when the vessel was built.”
The idea of being able to tell how old something is based off of the organic life that surrounds the site brought about some more questions for me. It made me wonder not so much about the accuracy (though I do question that sometimes), but about the range. Wikipedia says that the range could go up to 58,000 to 62,000 years back. Here’s why I question that.
Assume that the Bible is true and is a literal, historical account. Let’s say creation happened exactly as described in Genesis. After God created everything, he created man (Adam) and put him in the “Garden.” It seems to me that God must have created a lot of creation in mid-existence, if that makes sense. In other words, I don’t think that when he made the garden that there were no grown trees or plants yet. Or when he made the animals, He must have created some of them as fully grown. When He created Adam from the ground, was he a baby? I don’t think so. And then when he created Eve out of Adam, she must have been a full grown woman as well. But how would carbon daters date things in that Garden? If they were able to take a walk through the garden, how old would science say they were? Did the trees have rings on them? Did the soil consist of broken down minerals as if they had existed and decomposed already? If we found a piece of that wood today, how old would our dating system say that it is?
It’s all hard to wrap your head around, but I think these types of questions should be considered. When you hear a scientist say that the universe or the galaxy, etc is hundreds of millions of years old- is it appropriate for them to even make that kind of statement? The truth is, regardless of what we believe to be true, we can only go back so far. Even if you don’t believe in a creation by a higher power, you can only get back to there being some type of explosion that started the chain of events that brought us to where we are today. But you can’t account for where that explosion or where the matter that started it all out came from in the first place. Something can’t come from nothing. At least I don’t believe so.
So isn’t it rational to question how accurate carbon dating could be whether you’re pro-Bible or anti-Bible? I do think that if it can ever be confirmed that this find is the remains of Noah’s ark that it would be pretty significant because it would not only validate the historical accuracy of that account in the Bible, but would also lead to important questions surrounding they “why” behind there being an ark in the first place. The fact that the Bible states that the ark ended up on Mt. Ararat is pretty significant. It’s going to be hard to explain how a boat got up that high in a mountain range where it is quite a bit higher than any other previously discovered habitation level.
Regardless, those were just some thoughts going through my head today.
No comments:
Post a Comment