The Not So Exact Science of Dating- Does Evidence Drive Theory or Vice Versa

There are a whole lot of people out there (probably the majority) that believe, unequivocally, that scientists are capable of dating rocks, fossils, and the earth with a reasonable amount of certainty. Why wouldn’t we believe that? It’s what we’re taught in school and the evidence that is presented to us seems unarguable. So, when we hear of alternate views- such as young earth creation in which the earth is somewhere in the neighborhood of 7,000 years old based on Biblical chronologies- it sounds completely ridiculous to us. I mean, our middle school science books explained that scientists have methods to calculate absolute dates within an acceptable range with astounding accuracy. It is declared- the evidence has spoken and it proclaims ages in the billions of years.

As a Bible believing Christian, this leaves you with one of two options. Either the creation account in the Bible cannot be taken literally or these scientific dating methods are erroneous. Since many people believe the science is concrete (I’ve even heard the belief in a young earth compared to a belief in a flat earth- ouch!) we get really creative (and frankly complicated) with our reading of the creation account to make it jive with the findings of modern day science, which has resulted in many different hypotheses to add in the extra time. For a look at the theories we Christians have come up with you can check out my article What in the World Happened Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

Now I’m not saying that the Bible is meant to be a science book. Clearly, it isn’t. But what are the ramifications when we start discounting certain elements of the Bible that don’t corroborate our current scientific understanding? For example, embracing evolution as Biblical means that there could not have been a literal Adam and Eve- just think about the ramifications of that on the rest of the Bible. In our newly altered reading and understanding of the text, what else do we end up compromising on? Again, I’m not saying we should toss out any science that doesn’t seem to go along with our understanding of the Bible. On the contrary, I believe that both the Bible (a proper understanding of it) and real science (not blind acceptance of fallible theory) go together hand in hand- even if we haven’t figured out how just yet.

So, what about that second possibility? Could the problem actually be with our scientific dating methods? If you do a little research into the subject, you’ll find that this possibility is not as crazy as you might think.

Quoting from an article in the July/August 2016 edition of Discover Magazine, “When it comes to determining the age of stuff scientists dig out of the ground, whether fossil or artifact, ‘there are good dates and bad dates and ugly dates,’ says paleoanthropologist John Shea of Stony Brook University. The good dates are confirmed using at least two different methods, ideally involving multiple independent labs for each method to cross-check results. Sometimes only one method is possible, reducing the confidence researchers have in the results. And ugly dates? ‘They’re based on “it’s that old because I say so,” a popular approach by some of my older colleagues,’ says Shea, laughing, ‘though I find I like it myself as I get more gray hair.’”

I don’t recall such a candid admission being recorded in my science textbooks. Even though Shea is obviously speaking tongue in cheek, I think there is an important truth here that shouldn’t be overlooked. Our dating methods are not exact enough to be used alone. In order to be considered “good” more than one method must be used and if more than one method isn’t possible, then the confidence in the results are greatly reduced. What I do not see, however, is anyone acting like these dates are anything less than gospel truth. We (the public) probably place so much faith in these methods because their limitations are never properly disclosed to us.

The article goes on to explain that there are two categories of dating: relative and absolute. Before scientists developed our absolute methods of dating, relative dating methods were used. As the article points out, “Think of it as ordering rather than dating. Basically, scientists could only determine where an item belonged within a particular sequence (think layers of time represented by different sediments or rocks).


Scientists could, for example, say that one particular item is older or younger than another item based on these various relative methods, but they could not assign a numerical age to the item. These methods are still used today, and scientists now are able to assign a numerical age range based on the absolute dating methods that we have at our disposal today.

Do you see the weakness here? If the absolute dating method that dates the area in which the fossil or artifact is found is incorrect- so is the age range applied to the artifact. You see, fossils and artifacts themselves are not usually directly dated because the process of absolute dating actually destroys part of the specimen. So, scientists use “index fossils”, which are defined as forms of life that existed during limited periods of geologic time and are thus used as guides to the age of the rocks in which they are preserved.

It’s really pretty disturbing when you think about it. An age range is assigned for a particular layer based on our absolute dating methods, then the artifacts that are discovered within this layer are assigned an age range, and anything else compared to this artifact is assigned a range based on the range that was assigned to the artifact it was being compared to. This is the very definition of circular reasoning. Far from being exact or reliable, it is open to major error. If one mistake is made in dating, it actually translates into multiple mistakes on down the line. This is why they try to use more than one method (when possible)- to avoid this rabbit hole. In fact, when the multiple dating methods used don’t agree with each other (which happens a lot) the scientists “calibrate” their results. It’s all a big “guestimate”.

But how reliable are our absolute dating methods? After all, an awful lot of assumptions hang on them.

Today, radiometric dating is considered absolute dating. Several different methods fall under the umbrella of radiometric dating, but here is the basic concept: Each chemical element is made up of atoms. (Think all the way back to that periodic table in Chemistry class.) Some variations of the elements are unstable and over time they decay and turn into a different element (a process called radioactive decay). The original element is called the “parent” element and the resulting element is called the “daughter” element. To find the age of a particular rock, scientists first measure the amount of parent and daughter elements it contains, then apply the rate of decay for the particular element being measured (known as a “half life”). Entering this information into a formula results in the age of the rock.

Think about it this way. When you were very first introduced to algebra, you realized horrifically that a math problem could contain letters. An extremely simple example would be: 2a + 3 = 7. In order to find the value of a, the number it is multiplied by (2) and another number that is added (3) are given as well as the number that they are equal to (7). The numbers that are given are the constants and you have to know their values in order to solve for a.

Although the scientific equations that calculate the age of rocks are obviously much more complicated, the same principle applies. In order to solve for the correct age of the rock, you must “plug in” certain constants that are known to be true. And herein lies the rub…

Radiometric dating techniques depend on three unreasonable assumptions which they plug into their equations as constants. I’ll go ahead and state the obvious here: Your equation will never yield a correct answer if the constants that you are entering into your equation are incorrect. It doesn’t matter how accurate your equation is- wrong data=wrong answer.

So what are these assumptions?

The first one is a biggie: The rate of radioactive decay is known and has been constant since the rock formed. While it is true that radioisotope decay rates seem to be constant today, to make the assumption that radioisotope decay rates have always been constant throughout history (according to their theory- constant for billions of years) is unreasonable.

As a matter of fact, we now have evidence that at some point (or points) in the past we have experienced accelerated rates of decay. The RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) discovered this when examining zircon crystals. Dr. Jeff Miller explains their findings in an article for Apologetics Press, “The RATE team had several zircon crystals dated by expert evolutionists using the uranium-lead evolutionary dating technique and found them to be 1.5 billion years old, assuming a constant decay rate. A by-product of the breakdown of uranium into lead is helium. Content analysis of the crystals revealed that large amounts of helium were found to be present. However, if the crystals were as old as the dating techniques suggested, there should have been no trace of helium left, since helium atoms are known to be tiny, light, unreactive, and able to easily escape from the spaces within the crystal structure.” According to Roger Patterson writing for Answers in Genesis, “Helium escapes from crystals at a known, measurable rate. If those rocks were over a billion years old, as evolutionists claim, the helium should have leaked out of the rock.”

But this isn’t even the only evidence for fluctuating decay rates. New Scientist reported in 2009 that physicist David Alburger found that the nuclear decay rate of silicon-32 actually changed with the seasons. (article cited here: Similarly, a Purdue physicist found that nuclear decay rates speed up during the winter. The decay rates were found to be altered by the sun, but they are unsure as to exactly how- possibly an unknown particle that the sun emits. (link to the Purdue findings:

The second assumption is that the amounts of parent and daughter isotopes contained in a rock have not been altered (none gained or lost) by anything other than radioactive decay. This means that the amount of the elements in the rock sample have never been affected by outside elements. In science lingo, this is called a “closed system”. So, in order to arrive at a correct date, this assumption requires that the elements in the rock sample have never- in the course of billions of years (as proposed by scientists)- been affected by weathering of the rock due to ground water, or diffusion of gases, lava flows, floods, mudslides, meteorite activity, or anything else.

Dr. Miller notes, “To suggest a closed system for a specimen that is believed to be very old is a reckless, unreasonable assumption, (1) when there is clear evidence that a closed system cannot be guaranteed, and (2) when, in fact, there is compelling evidence that ancient Earth was rocked by global catastrophe that most certainly would have violated the ‘closed system’ assumption and created an extremely ‘complex geological history.’”

The third assumption is that the original amounts of parent and daughter isotopes that were present when the rock was formed are known. More specifically, that the rock initially contained only the parent isotope and none of the daughter isotope.

I’ll quote Dr. Miller again, “But how could one possibly substantiate an assumption about the initial conditions of a specimen’s decay process, especially when the commencement of its decay was hundreds or thousands (or according to evolutionists, millions or billions) of years ago? Is it not possible, and even likely, that a specimen might have been initially composed of more than one element that blended together during a geologic phenomenon before that rock’s decay processes began?” This assumption cannot be substantiated since no one was present when these rocks formed and frankly such an assumption is illogical, especially when extrapolating billions of years in the past.

These three assumptions are just the tip of the iceberg. They represent a fundamentally flawed, but universally accepted geological assumption called “uniformitarianism” which is the basis for most of the evidence for an extremely old earth and universe.

Where did the theory of uniformitarianism come from? After all, prior to the 1800’s catastrophism ruled the “science” of the day. Charles Kimball gives a short history in his paper The Genesis Chronicles and I’ll summarize here. In 1795, Charles Hutton (pictured above) published his book Theory of Earth in which he described the concept of uniformitarianism. In his work, he ignored the evidence for a catastrophic beginning of the solar system being put forth by the astronomers of his day such as the moon’s craters, the rings of Saturn, and comets. His theory was actually not very well received at that time because just after Hutton died, the first asteroid was discovered. (More evidence of a catastrophy.) Hutton’s theory had, however, attracted the attention of man named Charles Lyell. Lyell was heavily influenced by William Smith,which is the geologist who first suggested that rocks could be dated according to their position (younger rocks will always be on top of older ones and rocks that contain similar fossils are probably the same age). Lyell believed that it took millions of years for any geologic process to occur. Lyell also created the geologic time scale that appears (completely unchanged) in our textbooks today.

Not that Lyell’s theory isn’t logical. It is- to a certain extent. However, even from the beginning Lyell altered evidence to corroborate his theory instead of letting the evidence drive his theory. Here is one example: Lyell theorized that an ice age had occurred in 1 million BC. Niagara Falls and the Great Lakes were actually created by advancing glaciers, and Niagara Falls erodes at a measurable rate. In order to corroborate his theory, Lyell decided to measure the distance from the position of Niagara Falls from their original starting position at the entrance to Lake Ontario. Residents of the area informed Lyell that the Falls receded at a rate of about 3 feet per year, but this created a big problem for Lyell’s ice age theory because at that rate only 12,000 years were needed in order for the Falls to arrive at the position they occupied. Whoops! So, did Lyell revisit his theory? No. Instead, Lyell told the residents they were mistaken in their observance and concluded that the Falls actually receded at a rate of 1 foot per year, which allowed him to date the end of the ice age at 35,000 years ago- in accordance with his theory.

Surely, I don’t have to point out that this is not the way science is supposed to work. Evidence should drive theory, not the other way around.

Indeed, Darwin latched onto Lyell’s uniformitarian theory, applied it to biology, and the theory of evolution was born. Coincidentally, there is even less scientific evidence to corroborate evolution, but since it is the only explanation for the existence of humanity outside of a Creator, secular science has latched onto it like a life preserver. The common denominator between both of these theories is the requirement of billions of years to make them feasible- which is why any scientific evidence that corroborates a solar system younger than billions of years will be promptly discarded, and any scientist who acknowledges this evidence runs the risk of being deligitimized by the majority of scientists in his field.

The problem with uniformitarianism is that we have historically witnessed over and over again catastrophic geologic processes shaping the earth- not primarily uniform slow constant processes across the board. We have multiple examples in geology today that bear witness to the fact that we cannot make across the board assumptions regarding geologic processes. Dr. Miller cites this example: “Consider, as one example of the effect of catastrophic events on geologic phenomena, recent scientific discoveries considering rapid petrification. For years it had been assumed that the process of petrification is a uniformitarian process that takes millions of years to complete. However, in 2004, five Japanese scientists published research in the journal Sedimentary Geology which casts doubt on that assumption. The team studied mineral rich, acidic water from the explosion crater of the Tateyama volcano in central Japan- water which runs over the edge of the volcano as a waterfall. Wood had fallen in the path of the water. The surprising discovery was that the wood had become petrified with silica after only 36 years as the water flowed over the wood.”

I’m not saying that all scientists ascribe 100% to complete uniformitarianism. Obviously scientists witness that some geologic processes are attributable to catastrophism. However, most secular scientists would attribute a disproportionately large amount of the geologic shaping of the earth to uniformitarian forces, while relegating catastrophic forces to the fringe. Conversely, creation scientists draw different conclusions from the very same evidence, and are able to provide equally compelling -yet not equally reported- evidence.

What about when you put radiometric dating to the test? After all, we have rock that we do know the age of- rock whose formation we witnessed. How do these dating methods hold up when checking their accuracy against rocks of known dates? Well…

Of course, scientists attribute these dating inconsistencies to various things. One of the more common arguments I have read “debunking” the erroneous dates involves issues with presence of excess argon which causes errors in dating young rocks in particular (these errors would supposedly resolve themselves and end up being inconsequential- not drastically effecting approximate ages- as the age of the rocks being tested increases). But if we can’t accurately date these young rocks, how can we ever have confidence in the ages that we come up with in the millions and billions? And if the issue is that these rocks were not formed in a closed system, but were actually contaminated at formation by external argon, does that not call into question the likelihood that other rocks being formed supposed millions or billions of years ago were formed in a closed system? How would you ever know? Is it not logical to allow that these older rocks may also have been subject to contamination from outside processes as we have evidenced in the formation of our younger rocks?

The Grand Canyon is another perfect example of the inconsistencies in our dating methods. The layers of rock that make up the Grand Canyon are sedimentary. Sedimentary rocks cannot be dated by radiometric dating. So the dates that we get from the Grand Canyon come from the relative dating process I mentioned above, which takes into consideration the geologic layers (per Lyell) and index fossils. Now experts tout the Grand Canyon as an excellent example of the time scale, but if they consider this example excellent, I’d hate to see a poor one. Yes, it does have Pre-Cambrian rocks on the bottom and Permian rocks on the top, but as Kimball points out in his article, “…there are some layers (as much as 20 million years worth) missing from the middle, with no evidence to explain where they went. Why are the youngest rocks from the Permian period? What happened to the quarter of a billion years worth of rocks that supposedly should have been laid down on top of the Permian? As for those older rocks on top of the younger ones, if they cannot be ignored it is explained that some mighty geologic force flipped them over. If that is so, where is the gravel or breccia that is normally produced when two large rocks scrape against one another? And wouldn’t allowing the moving of those rocks by a titanic force be an admission that the theory of catastrophism might be valid after all?”


Notice all the areas of “disconformity”?  This means they don’t conform to the geologic scale for one reason or another. Most explanations of these areas of disconformity are attributed to catastrophic events. But don’t let your textbooks fool you- geologist don’t and can’t explain the causes of all of these disconformities. (Of course some of the areas can be explained, but no where near all.)  The point is, geologic processes are highly complicated and science by no means “has it all figured out.”

Another example of disconformity that is not easily explained…

What about when we radiometrically date the layers of basalt and igneous below and above the Grand Canyon respectively? notes this inconsistency, “The Cardenas Basalt bottom layer (below the Cambrian explosion) is usually dated with Rhobidium-Strontium and is calculated to be about 1 billion years old. Much after the Grand Canyon was already formed, igneous rocks were formed from a volcano on top of the canyon, that Indians saw erupt, only about 1,000 years ago. (The volcano lava flows have Indian artifacts in them, and go over the canyon walls.) These rocks were dated using the same method in the lab and were assigned an age of 1.3 billion years old. How can the very top, volcanic rock be older than the very bottom layer basalt rock? Even evolutionists admit that those Indian artifacts are not 1.3 billion years old!”

Obviously this is has been a simplified and no where near exhaustive discussion of just a few of the problematic issues with scientific dating. I didn’t elaborate on the different methods used for different types of rocks. I didn’t even begin to discuss radiocarbon dating which should have an article all to itself. My intent was not to be exhaustive, but rather to draw your attention to the fact that these dating methods that yield dates which we are in turn taught as indisputable fact- are in fact the subject of quite a lot of well deserved dispute.

The field of creation science and creation scientists are far from “science denying”. Instead, they seek scientific explanations that more accurately describe the evidence that we see around us today. No matter which side of the aisle you fall on, the theories should always be driven by the evidence. There is no truth to be found in manipulating evidence to support theory.

What in the World Happened Between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2?

What in the world happened between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2? Well, that’s the million dollar question. Arguments about this very question create a rift among some Christians in many cases, sadly too severe to bridge. Let’s talk about the three schools of thought: Gap Theory, Day Age Theory, and Young Earth Creationism. Now of course, among these three are several variations of beliefs; since I’m not trying to write a book here, we’ll be general. Disclaimer before we begin: I do have a very strong view on this particular topic which will be totally obvious, but for me this causes no rift between myself and those who hold to different opinions- I’m more of a “agree to disagree and move on” kind of girl.

First we’ll talk about Gap Theory. To be fair, I will use the same source for my definition of each theory- wikipedia. Wikipedia defines Gap Theory as the form of old earth creationism that posits the the six- yom (yom is the Hebrew word for day) creation period, as described in the book of Genesis, involved six literal 24 hour days (light being “day” and dark “night” as God specified), but that there was a gap of time between two distinct creations in the first and second verses of Genesis, which the theory states explains many scientific observations, including the age of the earth. This view holds that God created a fully functional earth with all animals, including the dinosaurs and other creatures we know only from the fossil record. Then, “something” happened to destroy the earth completely (some say the fall of Satan to earth) so that the planet became without form and void. At this point, God started all over again, recreating the earth in its paradise form as further described in Genesis.

The first question that comes to my mind is: why would we need to re- interpret these verses to mean anything other than what they literally seem to mean in the first place? Well, Gap Theory became popular near the end of the 18th and first half of the 19th century because of the then, newly established science of geology which had declared that, based on their findings, the only interpretation of the evidence pointed to an old earth- a very old earth. This meant that the earth was far older than the common interpretations of Genesis and the Bible-based flood theology allowed. So, some theologians of that time, in an effort to reconcile the Bible to the authority of science, introduced Gap Theory as a compromise so that the two could not contradict each other. Take this very telling quote from the Scofield Study Bible regarding why the gap theory is necessary, “Relegate fossils to the primitive creation, and no conflict of science with Genesis cosmogony remains.” The theory was popularized in 1814 by Thomas Chalmers, who was a very well respected professor of theology in Scotland. The theory really picked up steam when this “second creative act” (recreation of a previously existing destroyed earth) was discussed prominently in the reference notes for Genesis in the influential 1917 Scofield Reference Bible. In 1954, the evangelical theologian Bernard Ramm wrote in his book The Christian View of Science and Scripture, “The gap theory has become the standard interpretation throughout hyper-othodoxy, appearing in an endless stream of books, booklets, Bible studies, and periodical articles. In fact, it has become so sacrosanct with some that to question it is equivalent to tampering with Sacred Scripture or to manifest modernistic leanings.”

So we have the “why” of the compromise, now let’s discuss the “how”? How in the world did these theologians build a Biblical case for the Gap Theory? The arguments for Gap Theory revolve around compromises regarding the translation of Hebrew words such as: bara (to create vs creating), asah (making vs made over), hayetha (was vs became), and tohu wabohu (empty and formless vs something once in a state of repair, but now ruined). For an in depth explanation of these arguments along with rebuttals you can visit: To sum it up succinctly, I’ll submit this information: In 1948, M. Henkel, a graduate student at the Winona Lake School of Theology, wrote a master’s thesis on “Fundamental Christianity and Evolution.” During the course of his research, he polled 20 leading Hebrew scholars in the United States, and asked each of them if there were any exegetical (a fancy word that means interpretation of religious text) evidence that would allow for a gap between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. They unanimously replied- No! (Henkel, 1950, p. 49, n. 30) Of course, there is still the glaring issue which is that the Gap Theory creates a gigantic theological problem regarding Romans 5:12 where it is made clear that death entered the world through sin and sin through Adam. Gap theory requires an entire primitive creation where death was rampant before the introduction of sin through Adam. Any effort to remedy this problem can only be addressed with non-Biblically supported speculation (from what I’ve seen).

On to the second argument- Day Age Theory. According to wikipedia, this theory holds that the six days referred to in the Genesis account of creation are not ordinary 24 hour days, but are much longer periods (of thousands or millions of years). In this way the Genesis account is reconciled with the scientifically accepted age of the earth. The arguments for this theory revolve around the meaning of the Hebrew word “yom”. Proponents of this theory point out that “yom” can have a number of meanings: 24 hour period, long age, etc. They often cite Psalm 90:4 and II Peter 3:8. To apply these verses as evidence would be out of context however, as both verses are clearly using simile to show that God is not constrained by the same time parameters as humans are. Back to “yom”, here is the breakdown:

      1. “yom” occurs 2,282 times outside of Genesis 1. It occurs 359 times with a number outside Genesis 1. In all 359 cases, the context clearly shows that a 24 hour day is being referenced.

      2. “yom” occurs 19 times outside of Genesis 1, together with the word “morning” or “evening”. In all 19 cases, a 24 hour day is clearly intended. The words “morning” and “evening” occur together, without “day” 38 times outside of Genesis 1. Each of these occurrences refers to a 24 hour day.

      3. “yom” occurs with the word “night” 53 times outside of Genesis 1. Each of these occurrences refers to a 24 hour day.

I love this quote from an article in Creation Day regarding this issue: “Given this immense contextual evidence, one is tempted to ask somewhat flippantly, ‘What could God have done to emphasize that the days of Genesis 1 are literal 24 hour days?’ Might I suggest that He could have used the Hebrew “yom” together with numbers, morning, evening or night? And that is exactly what He did!”

Here we are at the third, and my (obviously at this point) preferred argument- Young Earth Creationism. Wikipedia defines this theory as the view that the Universe, Earth and all life on Earth were created by direct acts of God less than 10,000 years ago. Its primary adherents are those Christians who subscribe to a literal interpretation of the creation narrative in the Genesis and believe that God created the Earth in six 24 hour literal days. Now that sounds fair enough, right? Pretty unbiased definition in line with the definitions of the other theories, right? IF wikipedia stopped there, but it doesn’t. Wikipedia continues with this jewel: “Since the mid-20th century, young earth creationists- starting with Henry Morris (1918-2006)- have devised and promoted a pseudoscientific explanation called “creation science” as a basis for a religious belief in a supernatural, geologically recent creation. Evidence from numerous scientific disciplines contradicts YEC, showing the age of the universe as 13.8 billion years, the formation of the earth as at least 4.5 billion years ago, and the first appearance of life on Earth as occurring at least 3.5 billion years ago…Young Earth creationism directly contradicts the scientific consensus of the scientific community…As such, young Earth creationism is dismissed by the academic and scientific communities.” Wow! Somebody REALLY does not like creation science! The bias is so extreme and so transparent as to be comical. Why does Young Earth creation science garner such hatred you might ask. Therein lies the transparency of the bias- TIME. It all comes down to time. The other Christian theories compromise by giving the scientific community what it wants and NEEDS in order for their theories (most importantly the theory of evolution) to prove true- time- billions of years of it. Without billions of years, the evolution narrative explodes in a gigantic “Big Bang”, so to speak. This is why the scientific community is willing to overlook obvious major issues with their dating systems and a plethora of other issues- because these flawed systems( proven to be flawed, not speculated to be flawed) provide them with the time necessary for their darling theory of evolution to work. This is why the bias of atheistic, secular science cannot be ignored. This is why they ignore evidence of a young earth and black ball the scientists brave enough to be whistleblowers. After all, without evolution- they might be forced to take a serious look at the Bible.

Here I would like to insert a poll conducted by Harris Interactive in 2009 that demonstrates just how confused we are as Christians when it comes to the Bible and the “infallible” science we’re taught in school. This poll found that 39% of Americans agreed with the statement that “God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon, stars, plants, animals and the first two people within the past 10,000 years”, yet only 18% of the Americans polled agreed with the statement “The earth is less than 10,000 years old.” Wait, what?? It’s literally almost like we completely separate our Biblical beliefs from our scientific beliefs into two separate, non related boxes. This is not logical. Atheists/agnostics see that this is not logical. Ergo, atheists and agnostics think we’re crazy.

So, are Young Earth creationists loonies with no evidence? Far from it. There is literally SO. MUCH. EVIDENCE. I’m going to list just a few points, but at the bottom of the page I’ll post links to tons of evidence that you can study in depth if you’re interested. I won’t even broach the topic of the flawed dating systems that form the foundation for the billions of years interpretation because that will be a whole blog post to itself, so we’ll just stick with some other compelling arguments.

      1. Population statistics: One of the strongest arguments for a young Earth comes from the field of population kinetics. If evolutionary figures were entered into this formula, with man having lived on the Earth only 1 million years (some evolutionists suggest that man, in one form or another, has been on Earth 2-3 million years), there would be an Earth population of 1 x 105000. That number would be a 1 followed by 5,000 zeros. Using creationist figures, however, the current world population would be approximately 4.34 billion people. Which theory seems to be on target?

      2. Decay of the Earth’s Magnetic Field: It is now known that the Earth’s magnetic field is decaying faster than any other worldwide geophysical phenomenon. Knowledgeable scientists do not debate the fact of the rapid decrease in the Earth’s magnetic field. A comprehensive government report estimated, in fact, that the magnetic field would be gone by the year A.D. 3991. (I guess they’re going to address this as soon as we get climate change under control) Using complex mathematical equations to try to calculate backwards (employing a known value for the half-life decay rate of the field) presents a very serious problem in the time needed by evolutionists. The problem is that going backward for more than just a few thousand years produces an impossibly large value in the magnetic field, and of the electrically generated heat stored in the Earth’s core. In fact, Thomas G. Barnes, late professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas at El Paso, calculated the upper limit of this time span to be 10,000 years. Going back any further than this, Barnes concluded, would cause the field to be at such huge values that the Earth could not sustain itself and would rupture and crack.

      3. Polystrate Fossils: To the “man on the street,” one of the most impressive arguments for an ancient Earth is the testimony of sedimentary-rock layers (many of which are thousands of feet thick) strewn around the planet. Scientists (and park rangers) subject us to examples like the Grand Canyon and present their spiel so effectively that—as we observe layer after layer of sedimentary rocks piled one on top of another—the only explanation seems to be that vast amounts of geologic time must have been involved. Each division of the rocks, we are told, represents a time long ago and an ancient world that long since has ceased to exist. Embedded in sedimentary rocks all over the globe are what are known as “polystrate” fossils. Polystrate means “many layers,” and refers to fossils that cut through at least two sedimentary-rock layers. Probably the most widely recognized of the polystrate fossils are tree trunks that extend vertically through two, three, or more sections of rock that supposedly were laid down in epochs covering millions of years. Thus, the entire length of these tree trunks must have been preserved quite quickly, which suggests, then, that the sedimentary layers surrounding them must have been deposited rapidly—possibly (and even likely) during a single catastrophe. As Paul Ackerman has suggested: “They constitute a sort of frozen time clock from the past, indicating that terrible things occurred—not over millions of years but very quickly” (1986, p. 84; see also Morris, 1994, pp. 100-102; Wilson, 1997, 1:37-38). Furthermore, tree trunks are not the only representatives of polystrate fossils. N.A. Rupke was the scientist who first coined the term “polystrate fossils.” After citing numerous examples of such fossils (1973, pp. 152-157), he wrote: “Nowadays, most geologists uphold a uniform process of sedimentation during the earth’s history; but their views are contradicted by plain facts” (p. 157, emp. added).

What it all comes down to in my opinion, is an argument between secular society and Bible believers in which the secular science community has duped Christians into believing that science is infallible (though interestingly and demonstrably ever changing). Christians, in an effort to not appear stupid to secular society, have created elaborate theories for the purpose of compromise by performing olympic level gymnastics in Bible interpretation. I’ll leave you with this quote by Marshall and Sandra Hall in their book, The Truth: God or Evolution?, “It is not easy to overthrow a belief, however absurd and harmful it may be, which your civilization has promulgated as the scientific truth for the better part of a century…Time, as poets and insurance salesmen remind us, is the enemy of life. But time has its friends, too. Without great, incomprehensible, immeasurable stretches of time to fall back on, the evolutionists would be sitting ducks for the barbed queries of even high school students. Time is the evolutionists’ refuge from the slings and arrows of logic, scientific evidence, common sense, and the multiplication table…. The proven uncertainties about scientific dating are a well-kept secret. The average person reading his newspaper or magazine gets the clear impression that dating is a science as exact as the addition of fractions…. Since no one can envision ten thousand years—much less a half-million or a million years—“scientists” can hide behind the two thousand millions of years that they say evolution took, and they can hide there in relative safety. They think.” (1974, pp. 74,69,71,75, emp. in orig.)


Following are a list of links to check out if you are interested in further study: