The above and below videos are amazing videos by Creationists and I strongly advise that you take a look at them. In this seminar, Dr. Hovind explains what is the age of the Earth. Surprisingly, there is scientific evidence that shows that the Earth may actually be only 6000 years old. Some of you, especially the evolutionists, may immediately object to say: “The Earth is 4.54 billions of years old! What in the world are you and Dr. Hovind talking about? Science have proven this age a long time ago!”
My question to you all is this: Do you know exactly how these scientists determined the age of the Earth? Are you aware of the faulty assumptions used to determine the age of 4.54 billions of years old? Well they have done this mainly through the use of radiometric dating methods. In this article, I hope to explain how these dating methods are performed, the flaws of the assumptions that are made in the dating calculations and why the age determined by the scientists may be wrong. A lot of the information that I will share with you now is actively being suppressed by mainstream scientists as it discredits the evolution theory, some of the data maybe completely new to you and hurts the evolutionist’s world view. I will first start off by using an hourglass as an analogy to explain radiometric dating.
Hourglasses have two chambers with a narrow passage connecting them. A medium like sand is filled within one chamber and is emptied into to the other by gravity. We can tell how long an hour glass has been running by learning a few simple facts:
1) If we measure the amount of sand in each chamber.
2) If we know the rate of the sand falling between the chambers.
3) If we assume how much sand was originally in each chamber.
4) If we assume that no sand is added or removed from the chambers.
5) If we assume that the falling rate of the sand remains the same or is constant.
Now let’s compare this hourglass analogy to the radiometric dating techniques. Radioactive atoms are unstable “parent” atoms by nature and they break down (decay) with time to form stable “daughter” atoms. Just as in the hourglass analogy we can determine the time passed by the observing the amount of sand, the same is done for radiometric dating, the amount of particles remaining in the material is used as the means to date the same material.
One of the dating methods involve a mineral in granite called zircon, imagine that zircon is the hourglass now, within the top chamber, is the parent radioactive atoms of uranium within this same zircon and at the base chamber we have lead particles. Scientists make the following assumptions when determining the age of zircon and use these results to determine the age of the Earth:
1) It is assumed that zircon starts off with only uranium particles and no lead particles.
2) It takes 4.5 billions of years for the total number of original uranium atoms to reduce by half and decay to lead.
3) The rate of uranium changing into lead is always assumed constant.
4) Zircon crystals do not suffer from addition and/or subtraction of uranium and lead particles.
Now, if all the assumptions are true then we can accurately determine the age of the zircon minerals in granite and by extension determine the age of the Earth! Right? Wrong!
1) The Initial Conditions Assumption is Flawed!
Theoretically when we date freshly solidified lava flows we would expect that the date would be zero. Correct? But this is never the case, for instance, when freshly made rock samples from 1986 rock at Mt. St. Helens’ lava dome were dated by Potassium-Argon dating, the dates of these rock were found to be between 0.5 to 2.8 millions of years old (Austin, 1996)! Potassium-Argon dating is similar to the uranium-lead dating method, that I have just explained, this time potassium is in the upper chamber and lead is in the lower chamber of my hourglass analogy. Scientists got dates of 164 million and 3 billion years for two Hawaiian lava flows, the interesting thing to note is that these lava flows happened only about 200 years ago in 1800 and 1801 (Parker and Parker, 1979; Kofahl and Segraves, 1975). Underwater lava flows from Kilauea volcano on a Hawaiian island gave an age of 22 millions of years old when the flow was known to have occurred less than 200 years ago (Slusher, 1981).
Another study done on freshly made Hawaiian basalt rock performed by Evernden et al (1964) produced seven different ages ranging from the known zero years old all the way to 3.34 millions of years old (Morris, 1974a). Surprising, Evernden et al (1964) determined the average age of the seven ages to be 250,000 years old and accepted that as the age of the rock despite knowing that it was freshly made. We should be alarmed by this, using an average as a statistical method to find a final age is seriously flawed! It is like the equivalent of finding the collective average age of a mixed group of senior citizens and toddlers, any such average age would simply be meaningless data. This shocks me deeply because it raises the question – how many other scientists have done such flawed science and mathematics and have passed it off to us as scientific truth?
To make matters even worse, when different types of radiometric dating methods are used to date the very same rocks they often do not yield the same age. A few volcanic rocks from Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean was tested using Potassium-Argon dating and yielded an age between 100,000 to 2 million years old, while when tested using Uranium-Lead dating on the very same rocks an age of 2.2 billion to 4.4 billion years was determined (Kofahl and Segraves, 1975). In fact, deviations in ages done by various dating methods is a very common trend when using radiometric dating – how can we know if either is correct? Nevertheless, there is a serious problem here and I hope you see it. Not only does the dating method get things wrong but it oftentimes do not even agree with each other. Can we really trust these methods? A Christian has even more reason to not have faith in the radiometric dating methods because God tells us, “…cursed is the ground for thy sake… (Genesis 3:17),” we live on a flawed planet and we should be cautious if we ever attempt to find truth only from our planet.
The inconsistencies do not stop there living animals of known recent age have been tested and found to be several years old. The shells of living mollusks have been dated using the carbon-14 dating method, and were dated to be 2300 years old (Keith and Anderson, 1963). Living snails were dated using carbon-14 and found to be 27,000 years old (Riggs, 1984)! A freshly killed seal was dated using carbon-14 dating and was found to be 1300 years old (Wakefield, 1971). One part of a Vollosovitch mammoth was dated to be 29,500 years old and another part of this same mammoth was dated at 44,000 years old (Péwé, 1975). All these pieces of information may not necessarily prove radiometric dating is wrong but it certainly proves that it is flawed. If things of known ages are dated and found to be false then why should we have complete confidence when things of unknown ages are dated, like the Earth?
2) Radioactive particle amounts can change!
Carbon-14 dating is slightly different to the uranium-lead and potassium-argon dating methods that I have explained, in this dating method, the ratio of radioactive carbon-14 particles are compared to the carbon-12 particles to determine dates. Carbon-14 dating is only done on living matter unlike the other methods I covered. Carbon-14 atoms are originally formed by nitrogen which are bombarded by radiation from the sun, the carbon-14 then decays to stabilize once more back to nitrogen and the process is repeated over time.
However, there is an outside component that is not included in the assumption by scientists which is the Earth’s magnetic field. The Earth’s magnetic field deflects harmful radiation from the sun and thus impacts the carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio. Mankind has only studied the Earth’s magnetic field over the last 150 years and the overall trend has showed that the Earth’s magnetic field is decreasing in strength, by inference, the Earth’s magnetic field was stronger in the Earth’s past. Correct? Which also means that less radiation would have made it through to create radioactive carbon-14 atoms from nitrogen. This is an interesting and overlooked fact, as it means that animals and plants in the Earth’s past would have absorbed far less carbon-14 atoms than expected by scientists. When this low carbon-14 content is applied to the carbon-14 dating calculations they produce a false old age.
This fact about carbon-14 radiometric dating results are even made more unreliable when one considers the canopy of water that possibly enveloped the Earth before the global flood, documented in the Bible, this canopy of water is hinted to have existed above the firmament, an expanse which we know to be the Earth’s atmosphere:
And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Clouds today block and absorb some radiation, so this water canopy could have absorbed a lot more radiation than usual and hence would have further introduced more inaccurate measurements when radiometric carbon-14 dating is done, because it would have blocked off radiation from bombarding nitrogen to produce more carbon-14. This very low carbon-14 content in our Earth’s history when absorbed by animals of that time would have created an illusion that a large amount of time passed when in reality it may not have ever been the case.
With regards to uranium-lead dating, there are places on Earth that behave as “natural nuclear reactors.” Gabon, a country in Africa has been found to be one such place, just Google the phrase: “natural nuclear reactors,” these locations are rich in uranium. How does this contribute to my argument? Well, man-made nuclear reactors actually speed up the rate of radioactive decay producing the same illusion of millions of years passing by. So, when this occurs naturally this illusion of “old age” is ingrained within granite rich in zircon which is tested by scientists and in turn gives us the billions of years. Now the greater problem here is that these natural nuclear reactors can contaminate other rocks giving them all this same illusion of “old age.” I hope that you see now that these dating methods may be completely wrong about the Earth being 4.54 billions of years old.
Apart from those two flawed assumptions for the radiometric dating methods, we know of even greater problems which actually suggest that the Earth is actually quite young!
1) Helium in Zircon
During the radioactive decay of the parent uranium atom into lead, eight helium atoms are produced. The rate of helium gas which is released has been measured, theoretically it is agreed by scientists that virtually no helium should remain within these granite rocks that are all alleged to be billions of years old. In reality this is not the case, there are large amounts of helium within the granite rocks which actually indicates that these rocks are actually 6000, plus or minus 2000 years old (Humphreys, 2005)!
2) Carbon-14 in Diamonds, Coal and “Old” Rocks
Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years which means that when a total sample of carbon-14 reaches half its original amount, 5730 years would have passed by. Carbon-14 levels would be reduced to virtually zero in a sample when 60,000 years have passed. However, there are large quantities of carbon-14 found within diamonds, coal and rocks that are allegedly millions of years old (Baumgardner, 2003). Some may make the claim that these samples were contaminated, but how do you explain the existence of carbon-14 in diamonds? Diamonds are alleged to take over 45 millions of years to form within the Earth and once solidified everything “freezes” in place making it impervious to any possible contamination, yet carbon-14 is still found in them. As such this limits the Earth to less than 60,000 years old.
3) DNA Mutations
Geneticists have examined the rate of genetic mutation or genetic damage in the human DNA of mitochondria, which generate the energy for our cells to use. All these genetic mutations are passed down from mothers to offspring and accumulate with time due to radiation from our sun. When comparing this rate of genetic damage to the amount of genetic damage observed already (remember our hourglass analogy), geneticists have determined that all humans have originated from a single mother, who lived about 6000 years ago, which completely verifies what is told to us by the Bible (Gibbons, 1998). In fact, Christians even know the woman’s name! It was Eve!
4) Fossil DNA
DNA has been alleged to never survive past 10,000 years. However, bacteria which are supposed to be 250 million years old, according to evolutionists, have been found with intact DNA (Vreeland et al., 2000). Insects trapped in amber also have been found with intact DNA even though they are claimed to be millions of years old (Cherfas, 1991). This matter is exacerbated even further when fresh red blood cells and soft tissues of dinosaurs, which are claimed to exist over 65 millions of years ago, have been recovered with intact DNA (Schweitzer et al., 2005). Below are actual photos of these dinosaur tissue samples.
5) Earth’s Magnetic Field
I have touched on this earlier, that the Earth’s magnetic field’s strength is decreasing. When the data known about the Earth’s magnetic field is extrapolated it has been calculated to be no more than 10,000 years old. If it was any older than that age, then life would not even survive on Planet Earth (Humphreys, 2002)!
6) Carbon-14 dating actually proves the Earth maybe young
Dr. Willard Libby, the founder of carbon-14 dating, inadvertently admitted that his own carbon-14 dating method may be flawed. He stated in his book that the carbon-14 to carbon-12 levels on Earth needed to be constant for radiometric carbon-14 dating to even work. He had this to say, “If the cosmic radiation has remained at its present intensity for 20,000 or 30,000 years, and if the carbon reservoir has not changed appreciably in this time, then there exists at the present time a complete balance between the rate of disintegration of radiocarbon atoms and the rate of assimilation of new radiocarbon atoms for all material in the life-cycle (Libby, 1952).” This statement has not been the case, as I discussed earlier cosmic radiation levels are never constant, in fact this ratio has been scientifically proven to not be in equilibrium even though the Earth is allegedly “billions” of years old, nevertheless, Libby has ignored this clear problem that his dating method has. Libby’s statement is actually quite telling, the fact that the Earth’s carbon-14 to carbon-12 ratio is still not in equilibrium shows that there is a possibly that the Earth maybe less than 30,000 years old.
The above are only six of the hundreds of various methods which when combined limit the Earth to roughly 6000 years old. An age which is in complete harmony with the same age given to us by the Bible, which is found by adding up the ages of the men when they fathered their sons, from the genealogies that are given to us. Please share and like this article, I hope this blessed you all and I hope that you learned some amazing new things.
Austin, S. A. PhD. 1996. “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano.” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 335-343.
Baumgardner, J. 2003. “Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution’s Long Ages.” Impact Journal No. 364.
C, Riggs A. 1984. “Major Carbon-14 Deficiency in Modern Snail Shells from Southern Nevada Springs.” Science Journal Vol 224 58-61.
Cherfas, J. 1991. “Ancient DNA: Still busy after death.” Science 253 1354-1356.
Evernden, J. F., D. E. Savage, G. H. Curtis, and G. T. James. 1964. “Potassium-argon dates and the Cenozoic mammalian chronology of North America.” American Journal of Science 145-198.
Gibbons, A. 1998. “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock.” Science Magazine 279 28-29.
Humphreys, D. R. 2005. “Chapter 2: Young Helium Diffusion Age of Zircons Supports Accelerated Nuclear Decay.” In Radioisotropes and the Age of the Earth Vol. 2, by L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling and E. F. Chaffin. San Diego, CA: Institute for Creation Research.
Humphreys, D. R. 2002. “The Earth’s magnetic field is still losing energy.” Creation Research Society Quarterly Vol. 39 3-13.
Keith, M. L., and G. M. Anderson. 1963. “Radiocarbon dating: Fictitious results with mollusk shells.” Science Journal Vol 141 634-637.
Kofahl, R. R., and K. L. Segraves. 1975. In The creation explanation, by R. R. Kofahl and K. L. Segraves, 200, 201. Wheaton, Illinois: Harold Shaw Publishers.
Libby, W. 1952. Radiocarbon Dating. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press.
In Scientific creationism (Public School Edition), by H. M. Morris, 217. San Diego, California: Creation-Life Publishers.
Parker, G., and M. Parker. 1979. Dry Bones and Other Fossils. Master Books.
Péwé, T. L. 1975. “Quaternary Strigraphic Nomencature in Uniglaciated Central Alaska.” Geologic Survey Professional Paper 862 30.
Schweitzer, M. H., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski. 2005. “Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex.” Science 207 1952-1955.
Slusher, H. S. 1981. “Critique of radiometric dating.” Institute for Creation Research Monograph 2nd Ed. 39.
Vreeland, R. H., W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers. 2000. “Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal.” Nature 407 897-900.
Wakefield, D. Jr. 1971. “Mummified seals of southern Victoria Land.” Antarctic Journal of the United States Vol 6 (5) Sept-Oct 210-211.