Age, Dating Methods

	The  big bang is a fizzle, spontaneous generation is a  myth and  the development of higher life from simple organisms  is  a fairy tale.
	"The micro-molecule to cell transition is a jump of  fantastic dimensions, which lies beyond the range of testable  hypothesis," Green and Goldberger wrote in "Molecular Insights into  the Living Process."  "The available facts," they continued, "do  not provide a basis for postulating that cells arose on this planet."^1
	"It is a matter of faith on the part of the biologist that biogenesis did occur," observed G.A. Kerkut, professor of  physiology and biochemistry at the University of Southampton, "and  he can  choose  whatever method of biogenesis happens  to  suit  him personally;  the evidence for what did happen is not  available."^2
	"The  Evolution  of the genetic machinery is  the  step  for which there are no laboratory models;"  Dr. Richard Dickerson  of the  California Institute of Technology admitted, "hence one  can speculate  endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient  facts."^3
	"We  can only imagine what probably existed," Dr.  Dickerson added, "and our imagination so far has not been  very  helpful."^4
	Evolution isn't faring very well, is it?  But what about all the scientific evidence which proves that the earth is  millions or billions of years old?
	Many dating methods rely upon measuring the decay of  radioactive materials or the transition of one chemical form to another.   The best-known of these is carbon 14 dating.  These  dating methods  have  certain things in common, the  most  important  of which  is the fact that they are all based on  assumptions.   One assumption is that the rate of change or decay has been  constant throughout  history.  The Bible paints a picture of a pre-flood world much different from that after the flood, and evolutionists look  back to a time when the earth was covered with a uniformly tropical  climate.  So no one believes that conditions today  are the  same as those in the past.  Still, Carbon 14  dating  relies upon this assumption.
	Another  assumption of many dating methods  is that  there has been no contamination of a specimen and that all of the measured  element  was originally in another form.   For  example,  a system which measures the change of Uranium to lead assumes  that no lead was present in the original rock.  Otherwise, the  method is totally worthless.
	Dating  methods  such  as carbon 14 assume  that  we  have reached  a state of equilibrium.  But, surely,  scientists  have carefully  checked all of these assumptions!  In fact Willard  F. Libby, the man who developed carbon 14 dating, did conduct a test to determine  whether or not the rate of  radioactive  decay  of carbon 14 was stable.  He measured the rate on the surface of the earth,  and then he  examined data from upper atmosphere balloon soundings.   What  he found was a 20 percent  difference  in  the rates.   This great scientist chose to ignore the evidence  which made his theory useless and instead continued to assume that  the decay process was in equilibrium.^5  By the way, the actual evidence leads to two interesting conclusions.  One is that anything measured by the carbon 14 method would actually  be much younger than indicated.  The other is that the entire  process  cannot have been going on very long or an equilibrium would have been reached.^6
	Other scientists have been more open minded than Libby.  Two of  these are Dr. Melvin Cook, president of IRECO  Chemicals  and professor of metallurgy at the University of Utah, and Dr. Robert L. Whitelaw of the department of nuclear and mechanical engineering  at  Virginia  Polytechnic Institute.    Their  findings  are adjusted to allow for known flaws in the C14 method.  Dr.  Whitelaw  conducted a statistical analysis of 15,000 radiocarbon  datings.   His conclusion was that man and animals disappeared from the earth about 5,000 years ago.  He also showed that most  land-based marine fossils have C14 dates of 5,000-7,000 years. Compare this  with a worldwide flood between 4,000 and 5,000  years  ago.^7
	Just  how reliable is C14 dating if allowances are not  made for the incorrect assumptions?
	"The  hair on the (Chekurovka) mammoth was found to  have  a carbon-14 age  of 26,000 years," an article in  the  Radiocarbon Journal observed of one finding, "but the peaty soil in which  it was  preserved was found to have a carbon-14 date of  only  5,600 years."^8
	A carbon-14 test conducted on the blood of a freshly  killed seal indicated that the animal had died 1,300 years ago.  Another test of the shell of a living snail demonstrated that the  living animal  had died 27,000 years ago.^9  But what do evolutionists  do with data which do not agree with their theories?
	"In  general," Dr. R.L. Mauger of East  Carolina  University replies, "dates  in the 'correct ball park' are  assumed  to  be correct  and are published, but those in disagreement with  other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained."^10

	But  carbon 14 and related dating systems are not  the  only methods used to determine the age of the earth.  What about  the fossil  fuel deposits?  Wouldn't it take millions  of  years  to develop  all of that coal, oil and natural gas?
	We  have  mentioned  Dr. Melvin Cook's  work  with  adjusted carbon 14 calculations.  Dr. Cook, a Nobel prize medalist,  also conducted  extensive studies of fossil fuel deposits.   His  conclusion was that oil and gas deposits probably resulted from the sudden burial of organic material a relatively short time in  the past.   Since  these deposits are found under high  pressure  in permeable  rock formations, they must have been formed recently.  Otherwise,  the oil and gas would have dissipated into  the surrounding rock.
	"These  facts are irreconcilable with a  uniformitarianistic model," Dr. Cook concluded, "and even with a catastrophic one  in which the sudden deep burial is assumed to have occurred millions of years ago, particularly in view of the seepage."
	"Apparently," he added, "only the mechanism of sudden burial a few thousand years ago, not even sudden deep burial millions of years ago, can explain these results."^11 
	In  one laboratory test, researchers subjected an  important component of  wood fiber to a 150  degree  temperature  in  the presence of clay and absence of oxygen.  This is similar to  the condition which would be created by a global flood.  Coal materials were produced in less than two weeks.  Low rank coal products were  obtained  in two months, and high rank coal products were produced in eight months.^12
	Tests  by other researchers demonstrated that  global  flood conditions  could produce crude oil and natural gas  within  four years.^13
	Mary  Archer published a study indicating that enough solar energy falls on the earth in 14 days to equal the energy of  the world's supply of fossil fuels.  Since about .03% of this  solar energy is stored in vegetation through photosynthesis, it  would take 128 years of plant growth to produce the energy contained in the  estimated  supply  of fossil fuels.  After  the first  few hundred years of the earth's existence, then, an occurrence such as a global flood would instantly bury enough vegetation to produce the current supply of oil and coal.^14
	Speaking  of such a flood, George Dodwell  encountered  some interesting information which led him to an interesting  conclusion.  Dodwell,  South Australian Government Astronomer  for  50 years,  noticed that the tilt of the earth has changed over the years.   After examining the data, he concluded that  there  must have been a global disaster about 2345 B.C.
	But  what about the layers of the earth and all of the  fossils?  As was mentioned before, the fossil record does not reveal a  gradual evolution of life.  An abundance of fossils  appears immediately in what geologists refer to as the Cambrian layer.
	"The  sudden  contrast between the  Pre-Cambrian  rocks,  in which animal fossils are rare or dubious," George  Simpson  and associates  admit in their textbook, Life:  An Introduction  to Biology,  "and the Cambrian, in which they are abundant, poses  a serious problem."
	"Why?"  the book continues.  "A good scientist must be  prepared  to say, 'I don't know,' and that is at  the  present  the correct answer here."
	"The chief puzzle in the record of life's history on earth," evolutionist Simpson suggests, "(is) the sudden appearance,  some 600 million years ago, of  most basic divisions of the plant  and animal kingdoms.   There  is virtually no record  of  how  these divisions came about.  Thus, the entire first part of  evolutionary history is missing."
	Not  only does the fossil record reveal a sudden  appearance of life, but it also presents a lack of transitional forms.
	"Why then is not every geological formation and every  stratum  full of such intermediate links?" Charles  Darwin  wondered.  "Geology  assuredly does not reveal any  such  finely-graduated organic  chain; and this, perhaps, is the most serious objection which can be urged against the theory.  The explanation lies,  as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record."^15
	A  century later the geological record is no  longer  imperfect.   And the lack of transitional fossils still  proves  Darwin's  theory  to  be wrong.  It's interesting,  isn't  it, that Darwin  had similar feelings about the lack of Pre-Cambrian  fossils and about the rarity and destructive nature of mutations.
	The geological record supports creation, not evolution.  The dating system applied to the layers of the earth is based entirely on circular reasoning.  That is, evolutionists claim that  the fossils  are  a  certain age because they are found  in  a  given layer.   They then claim that the layer is a certain age  because it  contains  those  key fossils.  The fact is  that  the  fossil record  supports plants and animals being deposited by a  global flood and not evolution.
	"It  cannot be denied," R.H. Rastall wrote  in  Encyclopedia Britannica,  "that from  a  strictly  philosophical  standpoint, geologists are  here  arguing in a circle.   The succession  of organisms  has  been determined by the study  of  their  remains embedded in  the rocks, and the relative ages of the  rocks  are determined by the remains of organisms they contain."  ^16
	A  large amount of research has been conducted into the  age of the earth based on various considerations.  Dr. Thomas  Barnes has examined the decay of the earth's magnetic field and  discovered  that our planet must be less than 10,000 years old.   Other researchers  have considered things such as the flux of  chemical elements into the oceans, helium in the atmosphere, solar  system dust,  development of top soil, and population  statistics.  All point to a young earth.
	What  are we going to do, now?  Are we going to continue  to be enslaved by falsehood, or are we going to turn to the  Bible: the only truth which can set us free?

Unless otherwise noted, "Scripture taken from the NEW AMERICAN STANDARD BIBLE(R), (C) Copyright The Lockman Foundation 1960, 1962, 1963, 1968, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1975, 1977. Used by permission."

1) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p. 15.*
2) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p. 15.*
3) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p. 15.*
4) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p. 15.*
5) Blick, Edward. 1976. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood, CA: Haven of Rest. p.19.
6) Kirkpatrick,  Foy L. 1971. "The Creationist and the Time Problem.” Spiritual Sword II/3 (April): p.36.
7) Blick, Edward. 1976. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood, CA: Haven of Rest. pp. 19-20.
8) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p.16.*
9) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p.16.*
10) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. p.16.*
11) Blick, Edward. 1976. Correlation of the Bible and Science. Hollywood, CA: Haven of Rest. pp. 22,23.
12) Major, Trevor J. 1990. Genesis and the Origin of Coal and Oil. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press. p, 9.
13) Major, Trevor J. 1990. Genesis and the Origin of Coal and Oil. Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press. p. 10.
14) Creation Science Foundation. 1985. “Did You Know?” Ex Nihilo 7/3 (March): p. 15.
15) Darwin, Charles. Origin of Species. 6th London Ed., p. 313, quoted by  Jackson, Wayne. Fortify Your Faith in an Age of Doubt. Stockton, CA: Pledge Publications, 1974, p. 38.
16) Creation Science Foundation. 1984. The Quote Book. pp. 17,18.*

*Questions have been raised about some of the quotations used in the Quote Book.  To my knowledge, all of the references that are used here are not in question.  Please let me know if this is not the case.