- The Bible teaches the earth and universe were created in six literal days.
- The Bible teaches that death only came into existence when Adam sinned.
- Jesus clearly taught a short creation and a young earth.
Now, I want to focus on why mainstream science believes in an old earth, and I want to ask this question:
Are radiometric dating and other scientific dating techniques reliable?
In order to answer this question, we must first ask another question:
What is radiometric dating?
Radiometric dating refers to a technique used to date materials such as rocks, based on a comparison between the observed abundance of a naturally occurring radioactive isotope and its decay products, using observed decay rates. It can also be defined as the process of estimating the ages of geological specimens by observing the decay of radioactive isotopes found inside them.
(Perplexed Koala)
For example, certain elements found within rocks spontaneously decay into other elements such as potassium which over time will radioactively decay into argon. The testing of the amount of potassium that has decayed into argon can theoretically tell us how old the rock is, based on an observed decay rate (or length of time it takes for potassium to decay into argon).
These radiometric dating techniques are a foundational component in the theory of an old earth. Based on these radiometric dating techniques scientists have aged rocks and other materials to be millions or even billions of years old.
So are these dating techniques reliable?
Here is why I believe these dating techniques could be misleading:
1. Errors in Testing
Though mainstream science has crammed into our heads the reliability of radiometric dating, how reliable are these dating techniques really?
A recent study by a group of scientists called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has shown that there may be significant errors in scientific dating techniques. Dr. Andrew Snelling in “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks” provides a summary of the results:
Table 1: Errors in Testing1
These results show significant error in rocks that have a known origin, such as a rock formed in 1986 that radiometric dating shows the rock forming up to 2.8 million years ago! That's a huge difference!
Thus, these results and others greatly call in to question the reliability of some of our radiometric dating techniques.
So why do we see such error in these results?
What are some potential flaws in the way these radiometric tests are performed?
Well, that brings me to my next point..
2. Naturalistic Uniformitarianism
Though mainstream science has crammed into our heads the reliability of radiometric dating, how reliable are these dating techniques really?
A recent study by a group of scientists called the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has shown that there may be significant errors in scientific dating techniques. Dr. Andrew Snelling in “Excess Argon: The ‘Achilles’ Heel’ of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating of Volcanic Rocks” provides a summary of the results:
Table 1: Errors in Testing1
These results show significant error in rocks that have a known origin, such as a rock formed in 1986 that radiometric dating shows the rock forming up to 2.8 million years ago! That's a huge difference!
Thus, these results and others greatly call in to question the reliability of some of our radiometric dating techniques.
So why do we see such error in these results?
What are some potential flaws in the way these radiometric tests are performed?
Well, that brings me to my next point..
2. Naturalistic Uniformitarianism
What is naturalistic uniformitarianism you ask?
Naturalistic uniformitarianism is just a fancy way of saying 'the way science and the world works now is the way it's always been'.
Naturalistic uniformitarianism is described in a quote by James Hutton in ‘Theory of the Earth’:
“The past history of our globe must be explained by what can be seen to be happening now. . . . No powers are to be employed that are not natural to the globe, no action to be admitted except those of which we know the principle.”
-James Hutton, in ‘Theory of the Earth’2
This assumption is key to the whole scientific theory of an old earth. Under this assumption, scientists observe decay rates in rocks today and assume that these decay rates have been relatively constant over the history of the earth. Thus, using the current decay rates their tests result in extremely old ages for these rocks.
But let me emphasize this: this is an assumption.
I can see why scientists choose to make this assumption. It's a naturalistic and uniform way to view the history of the earth. But why must we make these assumptions? Might it also be possible that these decay rates haven't been constant over time?
It is impossible for anyone to assuredly say that these decay rates have always been constant. Why? Because no one alive today was there thousands or 'millions' of years ago to observe the decay rates in rocks.
You see, there is a difference between 'observational science' (science we can observe today) and 'historical science' (science we cannot observe which occurred in the past).
Here are some other key assumptions that many scientists make:
- The initial conditions of the rock sample are accurately known.
- The amount of parent or daughter elements in a sample has not been altered by processes other than radioactive decay.
It is clear that the theory of an old earth is based on numerous critical assumptions about 'historical science'.
I want to now challenge these assumptions and make some assumptions of my own:
Assumption #1: Creation With the Appearance of Age
Since mainstream scientists have the allowance to make these assumptions, how about we make some of our own assumptions?
One such assumption we could make is "creation with the appearance of age".
In Genesis 1:11-13 it states:
Genesis 1:11-13 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.12 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.13 And the evening and the morning were the third day." (KJV)
These verses tell us that God created the tree already yielding fruit on the third day. This means that God didn't create a barren wasteland and plant seeds that would soon grow into plants and trees over many years, but rather he created plants, trees, and the earth as already full-grown.
This is how I view God's initial creation:
You see, I think it is safe to assume that God created plants, trees, rocks, and creatures already full-grown. So if God created these things full-grown, how can we determine how old they really are?
For example, think about how God created Adam. How old was Adam when he was created? It is evident that God did not create Adam as a 1 day old infant. He was created as a full-grown man. So how then can we determine Adam's age? Was he 1 day old or was he "created with the appearance of age".
You see, if we did scientific testing on Adam and perhaps studied the growth rate of his bones to try and determine his age and based on our scientific testing we got a result of 32 years old, we would be wrong!
So why do we think we can test rocks or trees to determine their age if God may have created them with an appearance of an age of thousands or millions of years old?
This assumption would clearly skew the scientific testing on the age of the earth.
Assumption #2: Accelerated Decay Rates
One might argue and say that radiometric dating techniques would not be affected by God creating the earth with an "appearance of age".
Okay then, let's make another assumption. Let's assume that this idea of naturalistic uniformitarianism is false. Nobody can claim to know what was happening in this world thousands or 'millions' of years ago. Why? Because we were not there.
So, let's assume then that the world was not always the same, and thus the assumed decay rates in rocks and other materials were not always constant.
Is there any scientific evidence to support this claim?
As mentioned before, the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) has done numerous studies on radiometric dating and the age of the earth. One such study was done on granite rocks in which radioactive uranium (U-238) decays into lead (Pb-206) with a half-life of 4.5 billion years. See the study in more detail here.
The study states that as uranium decays in granite it produces helium atoms. These helium atoms have been observed to migrate very quickly out of the rocks and into the atmosphere. However, upon studying these rocks the RATE group found large amounts of helium trapped inside the rocks which should have migrated from the rocks 'millions' of years ago.
(Helium is Produced)
Photo via icr in 'Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth'3
What does the abundance of helium found in these rocks indicate?
This indicates that some time in the history of nuclear decay in these rocks, the decay rate was greatly accelerated and thus helium was trapped inside the rocks. Here is a quote from the RATE group:
"The data and our analysis show that over a billion years worth of nuclear decay has occurred very recently, between 4000 and 8000 years ago."
-The RATE Group4
The RATE group has found further evidence that this billions of years worth of radioactive decay most likely occurred during a few days or even a few hours at this accelerated decay rate. This means that these rocks may have appeared to have aged a billion years in just a few days! Talk about skewing the data!
So what event(s) have occurred on the earth between 4000 and 8000 years ago that might have caused this accelerated decay in these rocks?
I'll give you three suggestions:
1. The Creation Week
The biggest objection to accelerated decay is that accelerated decay would produce too much heat in the atmosphere. However, God provides an answer to that objection as well.
Psalm 104:2 "Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" (KJV)
This verse indicates to us that God perhaps stretched out the heavens or expanded the atmosphere and space. Scientists agree that if accelerated decay occurred at the same time as an expansion of space, the expansion would thus remove the excess heat produced from the decay.
So then the question becomes:
When in the Bible could an expansion of space have occurred?
Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)
During the creation week God created the atmosphere around the earth (firmament) and thus expanded the atmosphere by dividing the waters above from the waters below.
Therefore, with this expansion of space during the creation week this would allow a much more accelerated decay rate in these rocks to occur causing the rocks on earth to appear millions of years older than they actually were.
2. The Pre-Flood Era
The biggest objection to accelerated decay is that accelerated decay would produce too much heat in the atmosphere. However, God provides an answer to that objection as well.
Psalm 104:2 "Who coverest thyself with light as with a garment: who stretchest out the heavens like a curtain" (KJV)
This verse indicates to us that God perhaps stretched out the heavens or expanded the atmosphere and space. Scientists agree that if accelerated decay occurred at the same time as an expansion of space, the expansion would thus remove the excess heat produced from the decay.
So then the question becomes:
When in the Bible could an expansion of space have occurred?
Genesis 1:6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. 7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)
During the creation week God created the atmosphere around the earth (firmament) and thus expanded the atmosphere by dividing the waters above from the waters below.
Therefore, with this expansion of space during the creation week this would allow a much more accelerated decay rate in these rocks to occur causing the rocks on earth to appear millions of years older than they actually were.
2. The Pre-Flood Era
The Bible indicates the world was a different place and functioned differently during the period before the great Biblical flood. This is shown in Genesis 1:7.
Genesis 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so. (KJV)
This tells us that the world was surrounded by water. There was water above the earth (above the sky/atmosphere) and water beneath the earth (in and under the oceans). The atmosphere was entirely different!
The Bible also seems to indicates that it did not rain on earth until the flood in which the firmament was opened up and the water flowed in from above and below.
We also know from the Bible that mankind lived for an incredibly long period of time before the flood. Prior to the flood, the average age of a human is believed to be around 857.5 years! Wow!
Clearly, the earth was an entirely different place. So perhaps during the period from the initial creation to the Biblical flood these decay rates were much different and perhaps much more accelerated than we observe them to be today.
3. The Flood
One of the most recognizable and important stories in the Bible is that of the flood. This was described as a catastrophic event that marked a turning point in the history of mankind and the earth.
(The Great Flood)
Photo via creationrevolution
Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (KJV)
The world was said to be completely changed during the time of the flood. The great flood was a global and catastrophic event. Could this have been the time that accelerated decay occured?
It is postulated here that just as during the creation week, an expansion of space might have also occurred during the flood thus allowing accelerated decay to occur in these rocks.
This is supported by the idea that in 2 Samuel 22:9-16 King David is making an analogy between his own deliverance and the great flood. Phrases in these verses such as "fire out of his mouth devoured" and "he bowed the heavens" seem to indicate that great heat and an expansion of space might have occurred at the same time during the great flood.
So just as in the creation week, this expansion of space during the flood would allow for much more accelerated decay rates in these rocks.
Photo via creationrevolution
Genesis 7:11-12 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened. 12 And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights. (KJV)
The world was said to be completely changed during the time of the flood. The great flood was a global and catastrophic event. Could this have been the time that accelerated decay occured?
It is postulated here that just as during the creation week, an expansion of space might have also occurred during the flood thus allowing accelerated decay to occur in these rocks.
This is supported by the idea that in 2 Samuel 22:9-16 King David is making an analogy between his own deliverance and the great flood. Phrases in these verses such as "fire out of his mouth devoured" and "he bowed the heavens" seem to indicate that great heat and an expansion of space might have occurred at the same time during the great flood.
So just as in the creation week, this expansion of space during the flood would allow for much more accelerated decay rates in these rocks.
It is evident that radiometric dating may not be as reliable as we think in determining the exact age of the earth. The two main reasons to support this claim are as follows:
- Errors in the testing
- It is based on significant assumptions
Just as scientists do we can choose to make our own assumptions about the history of the world using events we find in the Bible. And we can see that these assumptions based on Biblical accounts give us a viable explanation as to why we see errors in testing and such large numbers in radiometric dating.
But the problem is, scientific textbooks in schools and the media do not spread these other ideas and assumptions about the age of the earth. Instead, they present mainstream science's assumption of an old earth as gospel and they keep any other ideas and the Bible out of it.
I am here, however, to help make known that the Bible and true science do coincide. That there's more ideas out there than a 4.54 billion year old earth. And that there are many scientists and much evidence that support these other ideas of a young earth and a Biblical creation.
So it all comes down to who or what you are willing to trust:
Will you trust the all-knowing God or will you trust the teachings and ideas of man?
Sincerely,
Jacob Springer
A Young Christian
Footnotes:
1 Snelling, A. A. 1999. "Excess Argon": The "Archilles' Heel" of Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon "Dating" of Volcanic Rocks. Acts & Facts. 28 (1).
2 James Hutton, Theory of the Earth (Trans. of Roy. Soc. of Edinburgh, 1785); quoted in A. Holmes, Principles of Physical Geology (UK: Thomas Nelson & Sons Ltd., 1965), p. 43–44.
3 L. Vardiman, A. Snelling, and E. Chaffine, (Eds.), Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. 2, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society, 2005.
4 R. Humphreys, Young helium diffusion age of zircons supports accelerated nuclear decay, in Vardiman et al., Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, 2005, 74.
