Home Sunset Feedback Contents The dating game
[Home] [Up] [Who Is the Author of the Hebrews?] [The Prophecy of Daniel Chapter 8] [Moon Struck and Misled  ] [The dating game] [Quotes for Creation] [Great Scientists Who Believe] [Geologic time scale] [Carbon dating] [Creation or Evolution] [Then Commenced The Jubilee] [Matthew 28:19] [Is Sabbath a Shadow?] [Marriage In Heaven] [According to the Biblical Principles] [Biblical Count of the 666 Beast] [Unsealing Daniel's mysteries] [Revelation 17] [Nature of Christ]

Bryan Bissell

How old is the earth?  This is one of the major questions of the creation/evolution debate.  Creation actually does not need to have the earth be young or old. The Bible makes no claim about the age of the earth itself.  God could have created the materials and rocks millions of years ago (or even created it fully formed like he did Adam and Eve) and then just recently put life on it.  Itís possible, but thereís nothing biblically to say what happened before creation.

The creation of life according to the Bible though certainly cannot be millions of years old.  Scholars estimate that Bible history is less than 10,000 years old.  But, evolution requires millions of years of history to be even considered possible.  If this earth is only a few thousand years old, then evolution is completely impossible. Evolution has so far never been able to prove that one kind of animal DID evolve into another animal (for example a deer to a giraffe) or that life can come from non-life.  You will see that this area of dating the age of the earth also is also very doubtful scientifically.

Almost all dating methods are based on the uniformitarian theory.  But, this requires 4 assumptions:

  1. The rate of change is always about the same.

  2. There was no major disaster, such as earthquakes, volcanoes, floods or other such things that would hugely distort the results

  3. You must assume how much of the element/material there was at the beginning.

  4. You must assign certain years to the experimental numbers that you find.

Itís kind of like a candle. If you come into a room and see a candle burning, how can you tell how long itís been burning?  You donít know what the starting height was.  You donít know if it was always burning or if it stopped burning for 100 years and then started again.  You donít know how fast it was burning at every point in history.  So, there is no way to tell how long it has been burning.  This is the same problem that all uniformitarian methods have whether they are used by evolutionists or creationists.  Scientific things must be checked by experiments where they can be repeated and retested.  You canít redo and retest history. The only way to check dating ages accuracy would be to have something that you are certain is 1 million years old and test against that.  But, we donít have anything that we are sure is 1 million years old.

Here are 4 reasons (and there are many more) uniformitarianism should not be trusted and then there are man examples and quotes below by scientists showing that it shouldnít be trusted:

1)      PICK ANY THEORY YOU LIKE

Most dating methods are based on the uniformitarian method.  This method measures rates of change and estimates age. There are over 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion.  Such a wide variety of possibilities makes it impossible to tell for certain the age of the earth using that method.  You can just pick and choose the date that fits your theories.  This is not scientific at all.  Itís guessing.

For the last 150 years, the age of the Earth according to evolutionists has been doubling at roughly a rate of once every 15 years. In fact, since 1900 this age has multiplied by a factor of 100! But, over 50 of the 80 methods show that the earth, solar system, and universe are young than 1 million years old.  This makes evolution impossible.

Hereís one example with volcanoes. Volcanoes eject almost a cubic mile of material into the atmosphere each year. At this rapid rate, about 10 times the entire volume of the earths sedimentary rock should be produced in 4.6 billion years. Actually, only about 25% of the earthís sediments are of volcanic origin, and much greater volcanic activity existed in the past. No means have been proposed which can remove or transform all these volcanic sediments. Earthís sediments, therefore, appear to be much younger than 4.6 billion years old. In addition, fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist, November 5, 1994 p:6 (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

You can see many other methods at: www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-017.htm and http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences34.html#1012191

But, again, if you can choose any method of checking the age of the earth from 400 years old to 100 billion, this is not science.  Itís only guessing.

2)      RATES CHANGE

Scientists can measure current rates of growth or change, but how do they know that it was the same or even similar throughout history.  Certain events can have disastrous effects on the systematic counting of dates. Volcanoes and earthquakes are known to change the date by millions of years at times and yet they happen in a day or less. If the earth was a pangea or in an ice age as evolutionists suggest or had a water layer as creationists suggest, the climate and rates and other aspects could be drastically affected. It is a total faith assumption to think that the rates now were the same or similar in the past.

There is evidence that the atmosphere enveloping the early earth was very different than it is today. At one time the entire earth enjoyed a warm tropical environment and there was enhanced oxygen in the atmosphere. Organisms grew larger and lived longer as a result.  The theory (not definitely biblically) of some creation scientists is that this was because of a water layer around the earth.

Robert Berner of Yale and Gary Landis of the U.S. Geological Survey analyzed air bubbles that are believed to have been trapped in amber some 80 million years ago. "The researchers clamped the amber into a vacuum chamber of a quadruple mass spectrometer, a device that identifies the chemical composition of a substance. As the machine slowly crushed the sample, the microscopic bubbles were released, exhaling up to 100 billion molecules. These breaths disclosed some surprising evidence: the ancient air contained 50 percent more oxygen than the air today." (Discover, February, 1988, p. 12. A Yale study published in the March 3, 2000 issue of Science independently confirms the high levels of oxygen present in the earthís distant past.

A 50% change in the atmosphere is a huge change that is not accounted for by uniformitarian dating.  It would have huge effects on the rates of growth.

Dr. Kei Mori of Kao University in Tokyo raised plants under special light that filtered out IR and UV radiation. He claimed it could promote healing and "because the ultraviolet is blocked, this sunlight does not fade fabrics or damage skin." (Gilmore, Elaine, "Sunflower over Tokyo," Popular Science, May 1988, p. 75.) One long-lived tomato plant (shown right) was grown in a special nutrient-rich solution to be exhibited at the Japan Expo  Under piped sunlight and controlled atmosphere, this tomato tree grew over 30 ft high and yielded more than 13,000 ripe tomatoes during the six months of the Expo! (Hiroshi, Koichibara, "Tomatomation," UNESCO Courier, March 1987.) The rate of growth of this tomato plant is hugely different from rates that we see today normally. Moriís environment of filtered sunlight, enhanced carbon dioxide, and nutrient-rich liquids could be similar to the conditions on earth near creation.  This would explain why many ancient fossils are much larger than these days fossils: 13 meter crocodiles, 3-4+ meter humans, 60 centimeter cockroaches, 1 meter dragonfly wings and others (see more info at: http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/exper/exper.htm, http://www.s8int.com/mega1.html or http://www.s8int.com/giants1.html).

       

3)      SCIENCE CHECK
There is no known check available for dates over 10,000 years.  They are total assumptions since there were no witnesses and thereís nothing to check your tests against.  Carbon 14 has been found to be fairly accurate for dates under 4000 years since it can be checked against known historical documents.  But, beyond that, even it's discoverer could not trust it.  I even suspect the 4000 years when cataclysmic events are known to have happened. In Hawaii, lava stones known to be 160 years old were dated at 160 million to 3 billion years old (national geographic magazine) and there are many other similar cases.

A dating method that cannot be checked against an item known to be of similar age (by other methods such as historical methods) has almost no credibility.  That's not science, it's speculation, something that evolutionists have indulged in to an incredible degree and so have some creationists.

4)      CALIBRATION OF DATA
Rocks donít tell you how old they are.  There is no sign saying, ďI am 3 million years old.Ē  Scientists make a scale from their observations and then assign years to different numbers.  This is VERY subjective and is heavily influenced by the scientistsí opinion.  If a scientist believes in evolution, he will assign millions of years to certain data.  If he is a creationist, he will assign a few thousand years to that data.  Here is one real example.

CORAL REEF DATING

Enewetak coral reef has been drilled through and is about 1,405 meters thick.  Evolutionists say that this proves the world is millions of years old.  But, here is the real scientific data.   This shows how all scientists will interpret data according to their own worldview. Here are the facts:

FACT:  The Enewetak reef is about 1405 m thick

FACT:  Observed rates range from .5cm (=5mm/year) to 414mm/year  with many in the 100-200mm range.

1405m = 1,405,000mm
5mm/year rate               =281,000 years estimated coral age
50mm/year rate             =28,100 years estimated coral age
100mm/year rate           =14,050 years estimated coral age
200mm/year rate           =7,025 years estimated coral age
300mm/year rate           =4,683 years estimated coral age
414mm/year rate           =3,393 years estimated coral age

These are ONLY the observed rates.  There may be faster and slower rates that havenít been observed.  In 1992, this coral in the picture above was found on a shoe that was less than 4 years old.  This shows that coral growth can sometimes be extremely fast.

Which rate happened at Enewetak? Nobody has been watching and measuring the Ewenetak coral reef for 5,000 years, so we donít know.  Science can only say what might have happened.  Skeptics choose the 5mm rate. Creationists choose the 200-400 rates.  Both are using a lot of faith.  It does seem logical to match the fast rates with the thickest corals on the planet, but this is just logical guess. 

Data above and more coral info at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1224.asp, http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/coral.asp#tale,
http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/199905/0345.html, http://www.grisda.org/origins/06088.htm

In the same way, all uniformitarian dating ages are only logical guesses with many assumptions.  The only dating ages that can be trusted are those that have been tested and compared against historical materials of a known age. If the earth is only a few thousand years old, then the theory of evolution is completely impossible scientifically and scientists should learn to be much more accurate and careful scientifically and not instill propaganda in peopleís minds.

===============================================================================

EXPERTS ON DATING

Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions 1) The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2) The rate of Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3) Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14 since its death; 4) Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5) There have only been small variations in ocean depths; 6) Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7) Cosmic ray intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31

Examples of where uniformitarian dating has been shown to be wrong:

  1. In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around 170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607
     

  2. Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167
     

  3. A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000 years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
     

  4. Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
     

  5. Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
     

  6. A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
     

  7. 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
    New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
     

  8. Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209
     

  9. A  metal hammer, with its fossilized wooden handle, has been found in sandstone at Paluxy River (Texas, USA). The sandstone has been dated as being 400 million years old. This is 399 million years before the first human is supposed to have evolved. Also found inside rock has been a pair of pliers, a bolt, and a set of car keys. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 6, No. 3, 1984 p:16; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1992 p:20; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10; Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 17, No. 1, 1995 p:45 [photographs included]
     

  10. ďThe hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966
     

  11. A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]
     

  12. Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994
     

  13. Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and (f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
    (a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
    2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897
     

bullet

Radiometric dating of fossil skull 1470 show that the various methods do not give accurate measurements of ages. The first tests gave an age of 221 million years. The second, 2.4 million years. Subsequent tests gave ages which ranged from 290,000 to 19.5 million years. Palaeomagnetic determinations gave an age of 3 million years. All these readings give a 762 fold error in the age calculations. Given that only errors less than 10% (0.1 fold) are acceptable in scientific calculations, these readings show that radiometric assessment should never ever be used. John Reader, "Missing Links", BCA/Collins: London, 1981 p:206-209
 

bullet

In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.  The radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.Ē Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19, No. 3, 1981 p:9
 

bullet

William D. Stansfield, Ph.D. (animal breeding) (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in-The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, New York, 1977, p. 80.-"Certain fossils appear to be restricted to rocks of a relatively limited geological age span. These are called 'index fossils'. Whenever a rock is found bearing such a fossil, its approximate age is automatically established. This method is not foolproof. Occasionally an organism, previously thought to be extinct, is found to be extant. Such 'living fossils' obviously cannot function as index fossils except within the broader time span of their known existence." 
           pp. 82 and 84.-"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long term radiological 'clock'. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists..."
 

DATES THAT DONíT MATCH THE THEORY OR DISCARDED

bullet

A. Hayatsu (Department of Geophysics, University of Western Ontario, Canada), "K-Ar isochron age of the North Mountain Basalt, Nova Scotia",-Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, vol. 16, 1979,-"In conventional interpretation of K-Ar (potassium/argon dating method) age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geological time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily-attributed to excess or loss of argon."  In other words the potassium/argon (K/Ar) method doesn't support the uranium/lead (U/Pb) method.
 

bullet

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, 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."

LINKS TO STUDY MORE ON DATING AND EVOLUTION

serious problems of dating techniques (last half is best and has quotes by evolutionists)
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/philebadcarbon.html

7 wonders of Mt. St. Helens (showing that volcanoes and natural disasters make uniformitarian dating very very inaccurate.)
http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/wonders. http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/exper/exper.htm

Early earth atmosphere science
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/earthdis/earthdis.htm

Detailed Data on moon dust from direct talks with NASA scientist (there are 4 pages on this, so make sure to click next. The conclusion is that if the moon were 4 million + years old, it should have at least 50 times more dust than it does. Very scientific and of course analyzes the comets and such in depth).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/TechnicalNotesa4.html#1023996

Problems with the Big Bang (Christians and atheists both who do believe in the big bang say that it had to be extremely precise in many factors for life to develop. Even some of the atheists are saying that it must have been guided somehow)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences15.html#1011757

Rapid burial (many fossils show that they were buried rapidly showing that uniformitarianism is not the way that all fossils were created!).
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences24.html#1029340

Speed of light changes even just in last few centuries (another evidence that uniformitarian's assumption of constant rates always is completely unjustified) and in the past possible up to a million fold faster than it is now!!!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/FAQ15.html#1143332

major changes in rates of stalactite growth (another nail in the uniformitarian theory)
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/AstroPhysicalSciences25.html#1012011

DNA Production DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins,a but proteins are produced by only DNA.b Because each needs the other, a satisfactory explanation for the origin of one must also explain the origin of the other.c Apparently, this entire manufacturing system came into existence simultaneously. This implies creation.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences37.html#1009536

out of place fossils showing that the geological column is not accurate
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences28.html#1055073

logical and scientific impossibility of sexual reproduction evolving by evolution
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences42.html#1028968

living technology is greater than our technology which was carefully researched and planned!
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeSciences44.html#1027893

CIA and Noah's ark
http://home.talkcity.com/InspirationAv/vs8int/phileark.html
 
EXTRA INFORMATION

Evolution depends critically on long time periods of time in order for it to be rationally possibleÖbelow are many references that show that the dating methods used are testably vastly in error and extremely inaccurate.  They are based on the uniformitarian methods which gives at least 80 ways of dating the earth and these ages range from 400 years total to over 100 billion. With a theory like that, you can just pick whatever dates suit your theory best.  But, the data proves that this is very inaccurate and canít be trusted.

bullet

Robert E. Lee, "Radiocarbon: ages in error",-Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol. 19 (3), 1981, pp. 9-29. Reprinted in the-Creation Research Society Quarterly, vol. 19 (2), September 1982, pp. 117-127 (quotes from pp. 123 and 125).-"In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs.".... 
    "Radiocarbon dating has somehow avoided collapse onto its own battered foundation, and now lurches onward with feigned consistency. The implications of pervasive contamination and ancient variations in carbon-14 levels are steadfastly ignored by those who base their argument upon the dates. The early authorities began the charade by stressing that they were 'not aware of a single significant disagreement' on any sample that had been dated at different labs. {86,87} Such enthusiasts continue to claim, incredible though it may seem, that 'no gross-discrepancies are apparent', {88,89} Surely 15,000 years of difference on a single block of soil is indeed a 'gross' discrepancy! And how could the excessive disagreement between the labs be called insignificant, when it has been the basis for the reappraisal of the standard error associated with each and every date in existence? 
    "Why do geologists and archaeologists still spend their scarce money on costly radiocarbon determinations? They do so because occasional dates 'appear' to be useful. While the method cannot be counted on to give good, unequivocal results, the numbers do impress people, and save them the trouble of thinking excessively. Expressed in what 'look' like precise calendar years, figures 'seem' somehow betteróboth to layman and professional not versed in statisticsóthan complex stratigraphic or cultural correlations, and are more easily retained in one's memory. 'Absolute' dates determined by a laboratory carry a lot of weight, and are extremely helpful in bolstering weak arguments."... 
    "No matter how 'useful' it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There 'are' gross discrepancies, the chronology is 'uneven' and 'relative', and the accepted dates are actually 'selected' dates.
    "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which funny paper you read.{91}"

bullet

Dr. C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Quebec, Canada), Dr. D. E. James (Staff Member in geophysics and geochemistry, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Washington D.C., USA) and Dr. S. R. Hart (Professor of Geochemistry, Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, USA), "Ancient lithosphere: its role in young continental volcanism",-Science, vol. 193, September 17, 1976, p. 1093.-"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron (equal in duration; equal intervals of time) model is that crystallization ages determined on basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and there are well documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the literature." 

bullet

Prof. Gunter Faure (Department of Geology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, USA) and Prof. James L.  Powell (Department of Geology, Oberlin College, Ohio, USA) in "Strontium Isotope Geology", Springer-Verlag, Berlin and New York, 1972, p. 102.-"These results indicate that even total rock systems may be open during metamorphism (the process by which rocks are altered in composition, texture, or internal structure by extreme heat, pressure, and the introduction of new chemical substances) and may have their isotopic systems changed, making it impossible to determine their geologic age."

bullet

Richard L. Mauger, Ph.D. (geology) (Associate Professor of Geology, East Carolina University, USA), "K-Ar ages of biotites -(dark brownish to black mica {aluminum silicate minerals, common in igneous and metamorphic rocks, characteristically splitting into flexible sheets used in insulation and electrical equipment} found in igneous {formed from a molten [made liquid by heat] state} and metamorphic {formed by pressure, heat} rocks)-from tuffs-(a rock composed of compacted volcanic ash varying in size from fine sand to coarse gravel)-in Eocene rocks of the Green River, Washakie, and Uinta Basins, Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado".-Contributions to Geology, University of Wyoming, vol. 15 (1), 1977, p. 37.-"In general, 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."

bullet

M. L. Keith and G. M. Anderson (Department of Geochemistry and Mineralogy, Pennsylvania State University, USA), "Radiocarbon dating: fictitious results with mollusk shells",-Science, vol. 141, 16 August 1963, pp. 634,635.-"The most noteworthy feature of the results is that the analyzed modern mollusk shells from river environments are not only deficient in C13, relative to marine shells, as noted by Keith 'et al'. (16), but are also extremely deficient in C14, relative to modern wood, and give uncorrected radiocarbon ages in the range 1010 to 2300 years."

bullet

Wakefield Dort, Jr. (Department of Geology, The University of Kansas), "Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land",- Antarctic Journal-(Washington), vol. 6, September-October 1971, p. 211.-Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct. For example, the apparent radiocarbon age of the Lake Bonney seal known to have been dead no more than a few weeks was determined to be 615 +/- 100 years. A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years."

bullet

(flood) "The scientific establishment's acceptance of worldwide catastrophism and mass extinction does not signify their abandonment of materialistic evolution.
    Neither has their grudging acquiescence to the fact that great catastrophes caused the deposition of many of the fossils forced them to consider that virtually no fossils are in the process of forming on the bottom of any lake or sea today. This is a verboten subject. When I asked the editors of several of the most prestigious scientific journals the reasons for this silence, I was met with more silence."

Luther D. Sunderland,  "Mass Extinction & Catastrophism Replace Darwinism & Uniformitarianism"

Evolution Says .....
Sedimentary rocks are millions of years old, as they take millions of years to form. Gemstones and petrified wood
also takes millions of years to form. These are all proof of the old age of the earth.

The Facts Are .....

bullet

A petrified orange has been found in a creek near Gayndah (Queensland). The orange cannot be
more than about 25 years old, as the first oranges were not produced in the area until 1968. This short
period of time for an organic object to turn into rock nullifies the evolutionary hypothesis that millions
of years are required for the process to occur. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 10, No. 1, 1988 p:11 [photographs included]

bullet

A felt hat left in a spray mine in Tasmania (Australia) was found 50 years later. The minerals in the
water that covered the hat had turned the hat to stone. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10 [photo included]

bullet

A bowler hat was buried in the volcanic eruption of Te Wairoa village (North Island, New
Zealand) on June 10, 1886. It was discovered 20 years later, and found to have turned to stone. A leg
of ham had also been petrified after being buried in the same catastrophe. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986
p:10 [photos included]

bullet

In the 1780's a Maori chief was buried by being placed in a burial cave at Cavern Head (NZ). The
remains of the chief were discovered by Walter Traill in 1877, and were found to have turned to stone.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1986 p:10

bullet

Rocks composed of iron-rich limestone, sand and mud are forming in a Norfolk (UK) marsh in as
short a time as 6 months. The limestone which cements the material together is being created by
bacteria which are thriving on the rotting vegetation. Rocks do not necessarily take millions of years
to form, nor do the fossils within them. Eastern Daily Press (UK), October 5, 1994

bullet

Fuming volcanoes are known to produce around 500 gm of gold per day in the fluids coming out
of them. This is the equivalent of 18 tonnes of gold per century from just one volcano. New Scientist,
November 5, 1994 p:6  (we should gave quite an incredible amount of gold...MUCH more than we do from billions of years ages...another proof of a young earth)

bullet

A hammer has been found embedded in Ordovician rock in London (Texas, USA), and has been
assigned the age of 400-500 million years. The handle of the hammer is wooden, and the head is steel.
An analysis of the head by Batelle Laboratories (USA) indicates that it was not prepared by any
known modern process of steel production. Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 8, No. 1, 1985 p:14-16 [photos included]

bullet

Some man-made items recovered from coal seams include:- (a) a gold chain [1891], (b) an iron
thimble [1883], (c) a drill bit or borer [1853], (d) coins [1901], (e) a cuboid-shaped tool [1885], and
(f) a carved stone plate bearing the image of a man's face. These discoveries have never been widely
announced, as they contradict the evolutionary time-frames for rock formation and human evolution.
(a) Morrisonville Times, June 11, 1891; (b) American Antiquarian, Vol. 5, 1883; (c) Proceedings of the Society of Antiquarians of Scotland, Vol. 1, Part
2, 1853; (d) Strand Magazine, Vol. 21, 1901; (e) INFO Journal, Autumn, 1967; (f) The Daily Bee Newspaper, April 3, 1897

bullet

Human fossil skulls and bones have been found in anthracite coal. The assessed age of the rock is
hundreds of millions of years older than the time when humans are said to have evolved. Science Frontiers,
September/October, 1991 p:3

bullet

The US Geological Survey has documented that as much as 90% of the radioactive elements in
some granites could be removed by leaching the rock with a weak acid. They also state that as much
as 40% of the uranium in fresh-appearing igneous rocks is readily leachable. K.R. Klepper & D.G. Wyant, "Notes
on the Geology of Uranium", US Geological Survey Bulletin, No. 1046-F, 1957 p:93

bullet

The Committee on the Measurement of Geological Time expressed their lack of confidence in
radioactive dating as far back as 1950. They said that the 'dates' were like railway timetables in that
they are subject to change without notice. "The Penguin Dictionary of Geology", Penguin Books: Middlesex (England), 1972 p:378

bullet

"There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as
previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that atomic
clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [era] to a close
may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man." Written in Frederic B.
Jueneman, "Secular Catastrophism", Industrial Research and Development, June 1982 p:21

bullet

"It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are
claimed to be ..... The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and
evolutionists ....." Written by Dr William D. Stansfield (Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University) in his book "The Science of
Evolution", Macmillan: New York, 1977 p:84

bullet

"One serious consequence of the mantle isochron model is that crystallization ages determined on
basic igneous rocks by the Rb-Sr whole-rock technique can be greater than the true age by many
hundreds of millions of years. This problem of inherited age is more serious for younger rocks, and
there are well-documented instances of conflicts between stratigraphic age and Rb-Sr age in the
literature." Written by Dr C. Brooks (Professor of Geology, University of Montreal, Canada) and others, in their article "Ancient Lithosphere: Its Role
in Young Continental Volcanism", in Science, Vol. 193, September 17, 1976 p:1093

bullet

"Much still remains to be learned of the interpretation of isotopic ages and the realization that in
many instances the isotopic age is not necessarily the geological age of a rock has unfortunately led to
an over-sceptical attitude by some field geologists." Written by Peter E. Brown and John A. Miller in their article "Interpretation
of Isotopic Ages in Orogenic Belts" in "Time and Place in Orogeny", Geological Society of London Special Publication, No. 3, 1969 p:137

bullet

Eleven distinct types of microbes have been identified in rock samples from Marble Bar (W.A.) dated
at 3.5 billion years old, in evolutionary terms. This date puts the rock at forming only 400 million years
after the earth cooled enough for life to exist - according to evolutionary theory. The assessed age of
these organisms is in total conflict with the current ages assigned by evolutionists to the origin of life on
Earth. Time (Australia), May 10, 1993 p:15; Science, April 30, 1993 p:640-646

bullet

In the 1960's, scientists took ten samples of lava from both vegetated and unvegetated sites on
Mount Rangitoto (Auckland), and had their ages calculated using the Potassium-Argon method. The
ages of the ten samples ranged from 146,000-500,000 years. Not only did the tests produce a
discrepancy in age of the rocks, but the rock formed when the volcano erupted around 200 years ago,
according to Maori legend. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 33, 1969 p:1485-1520

bullet

In 1968 scientists dated the rocks of a Hawaiian volcano called Hualalai, using Potassium/Argon
radiometric techniques. They knew that the volcano had erupted in 1800 and that the rocks were around
170 years old, but the ages they determined ranged from 160 million to 3 billion. This method of dating
rocks obviously produces erroneous ages, and should not be used to factually age the earth and its
geology. Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 73, No. 14, 1968 p:4601-4607

bullet

Different radioactive dating methods used on volcanic rock samples from Reunion Island (Indian
Ocean) gave conflicting results that varied from 100,000 to 4.4 billion years. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol.
35, 1971 p:261-288 & Vol. 36, 1972 p:1167

bullet

Radiocarbon and Uranium-Thorium dates calculated by the Lamont-Doherty Geological Laboratory
(New York) for samples of Caribbean coral have been found to differ by 3,500 years. These tests show
how inaccurate, and artificial, age assessments from radio-dating are. Science News, June 9, 1990 p:356

bullet

Lava flows on the Uinkaret Plateau north of the Grand Canyon are a most recent formation, being
only a few thousand years old. Radiodating of this rock using Rubidium-Strontium and Lead-Lead
methods has produced ages from 1.5 - 2.6 billion years. Clearly, the age assessment techniques are vastly
inaccurate if the young lava flow is assessed as being older that the sedimentary rock on which it lies.
Creation Ex Nihilo, Vol. 11, No. 3, 1989 p:37

Radiodating of minerals collected from a drill core in Northern Australia, using the Uranium-
Thorium-Lead method, has produced conflicting ages. One sample was dated as 862 million years old,
while three other samples were each assessed as being 0 (zero) million years old. This adds to the
confirmation that radiodating techniques are highly variable, and therefore cannot be used to accurately
date objects. Search, Vol. 3, 1972 p:382-385; Mineralium Deposita, Vol. 11, 1976 p:133-154.


(1) Carbon-14 calculations are based on 7 assumptions , concerning the past 20-30 thousand years. 1/
The balance between Carbon-14 production and decay has always been the same; 2/ The rate of
Carbon-14 decay has not altered; 3/ Organic material tested has not been contaminated by Carbon-14
since its death; 4/ Earth's magnetic field intensity has not changed; 5/ There have only been small
variations in ocean depths; 6/ Ocean temperature changes have only been minor; and 7/ Cosmic ray
intensity has not changed. Measurements based on assumptions are guesses, not fact. Willard F. Libby,
"Radiocarbon Dating", University of Chicago Press: Chicago, 1955 p:8, 10, 19-31
(2) Examples of where C-14 dating has been shown to be erroneous:-
(i) A living water snail taken from an artesian spring in Nevada was given as assessed age of 27,000
years. Science, Vol. 224, April 6, 1984 p:58-61
(ii) Shell from living clams was 'dated' thousands of years old. Science, Vol. 141, August 16, 1963 p:634
(iii) Dried seal carcasses less than 30 years old were 'dated' as 4,600 years old. Antarctic Journal of the United
States
, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(iv) A freshly killed seal was assessed at 1,300 old. Antarctic Journal of the United States, Vol. 6, October, 1971 p:210+
(v) A 15,000 year difference appeared in the assessment of samples from a single sample block of peat.
New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics, Vol. 21, No. 4, 1978 p:463-466
(3) Thirty eight laboratories world-wide carbon-dated samples of wood, peat and carbonate, and
produced differing dates for similar objects of the same age. The overall finding of the comparative
test was that radiocarbon dating was 'two to three times less accurate than implied by their error
terms'. Ages of objects assessed by this method cannot therefore be viewed as being credible. Nature,
September 28, 1989 p:267; New Scientist, September 30, 1989 p:10
(4) "In the light of what is known about the radiocarbon method and the way it is used, it is truly
astonishing that many authors will cite agreeable determinations as 'proof' for their beliefs ..... The
radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross
discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected
dates. "This whole blessed thing is nothing but 13th century alchemy, and it all depends upon which
funny paper you read"." Written by Robert E. Lee in his article "Radiocarbon: Ages in Error" in Anthropological Journal Of Canada, Vol. 19,
No. 3, 1981 p:9
(5) "Materials which give radiocarbon dates of tens of thousands of radiocarbon years could have true
ages of many fewer calendar years." Personal correspondence from Gerald E. Aardsma to Paul Taylor. Quoted in Paul S. Taylor, "The
Illustrated Origins Answer Book" (4th. ed.) Eden Publications: Mesa (Arizona), 1992 p:59
(6) In Dr Sheridan Bowman's book for the British Museum, "Radiocarbon Dating", it states:
"Radiocarbon is not quite as straightforward as it may seem. The technique does not in fact provide
true ages, and radiocarbon results must be adjusted (calibrated) to bring them into line with calendar
ages". Diggings, August, 1990 p:8
(7) "If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict
them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date', we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by T.
Save-Soderbergh (Egyptologist) & Ingrid Olsson (Physicist) in "C-14 Dating and Egyptian Chronology" in Proceedings of the Twelfth Nobel Symposium,
John Wiley & Sons: New York, 1970 p:35; [see also Diggings, August, 1990 p:8]


SDA Global

Contact  Domains: www.sdaglobal.org Host master: fablenatural@gmail.com