Zack Grimes (owtkast023) wrote in answers_genesis,
Zack Grimes
owtkast023
answers_genesis

Dating scandals?

Seeing as how the editors of this site tend to chop up negative emails for dissection, I will keep this brief.

We occasionally “chop up” positive ones as well (see A ‘thank you’ for Scientific American response and Another textbook teaching outdated ‘evidence’ for evolution), but they don’t make the feedback area very often or don’t need much added to them, except perhaps links to articles on our site or to Scripture (as the one on the left). This “chopping-up” is called a point-by-point analysis, which enables us to address each point directly. It isn’t meant to be rude or negative, but to enable a clear and thorough reply.

I have read much of your website. I have seen many of your evidences against evolution.

Well, we all have the same evidence. It is the interpretation of that evidence that’s different. Here are two articles that may help you understand this concept better:

However, I have noticed that while you criticize different dating methods as unreliable, you embrace them when they agree with your position that the Earth is six thousand years old. Would you care to address this seeming inconsistancy?

Thanks

Bryan Trim
USA

The 6,000 years age of the earth doesn’t come from dating methods but from studying the chronologies given in the Bible. Quite a few people have carefully researched these and arrived at an age of around 6,000 years. Two fairly comprehensive books that show the process of doing this are available in our bookstore if you wish to see some good examples.

Since the Bible is our absolute authority, that is where we get an age for the universe. Any radiometric dating model or other uniformitarian dating method can and does have problems—we have addressed this repeatedly in our Q&A on radiometric dating; it is also addressed in the RATE research. I would also recommend you read the article The dating game.

However, we often use dating methods to undermine the popular belief that they are accurate by highlighting the maximum age given by the method. (This is not to say we trust the maximum dates entirely either.) For example, the RATE project recently used carbon-14 dating to undermine dates of things allegedly millions of years old. This is documented thoroughly in the RATE 2 book and here is an article on it from ICR: Measuring 14C in Fossilized Organic Materials: Confirming the Young Earth Creation-Flood Model.

In essence, 14C has a half-life of less than 6,000 years, so it should be gone in 50,000 to 100,000 years. Yet some things that have been dated by potassium-argon, uranium decay, etc., still have 14C in them—when they shouldn’t. And coal and diamonds have 14C too! So a problem arises—are they millions of years old or less than about 100,000 years? They can’t be millions of years if they have any traces of 14C. So we use this to show the dates of millions of years are obviously inaccurate, yet we wouldn’t say the given 14C dates are entirely accurate either.

Here is an example. If someone told me they drove a Corvette back in 1931 and yet I know the first Corvette came off the line in 1953 (so this is a maximum), I would know this statement was inaccurate. 

There are other (non-radiometric) methods that also yeild maximum ages for the universe far younger than uniformatarians require. In these cases, the upper limits come by using uniformitarian assumptions and therefore are maximums within a uniformitarian model, too. We do not use these methods to accurately date specific specimens (as some do).

We commonly say some of these dates are confirmations of or are consistent with the biblical account in that they contradict the “millions of years” dates commonly purported. But even the maximum ages are subject to change. The biblical date is still the absolute authority. 

Kind regards in Christ,
Bodie Hodge, AiG–USA

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic
  • 1 comment