The Age of the Earth: Radiocarbon Dating’s Flaws

Science is the practical study of the natural world; it is the quintessence of human reasoning.  It has, and continues to, answer some of the most biological, chemical, and physical questions, such as why humans contract certain diseases, why copper oxidizes, and why apples fall from trees.  From these questions come complex theories, such as Albert Einstein’s Theory of Relativity and Sir Isaac Newton’s physical and mathematic breakthroughs.  Yet science remains quite fallible—as humans are—as previous theories are consistently disproven or fragmented by new findings.  Overwhelming amounts of inquiries remain unreciprocated and ignored.  New research regarding flaws in the calculated age of the earth perplexes scientists, as it suggests a young-age formation theory.  Such flaws include the unreliability of radiocarbon dating methods, mainly due to confirmed biblical events that, with certainty, greatly influenced incorrect calculations of the ages of fossils, and contamination of artifacts.  The resultant is an unknown age of the earth.

Full comprehension of the age of the earth requires an understanding of the radiocarbon dating method, more generally named radiometric dating by geological scholars and researchers.  Radiometric dating is “a large set of scientific methods and procedures that involve measurements of the extent of radioactive decay for a variety of chemical elements within geologic samples” (Young and Stearley, 390).  A radioactive isotope, an unstable atom that also varies from the normal makeup of the said atom, is needed in order to execute the process of carbon dating.  A stable, non-isotopic atom is not capable of delivering the needed results of radiocarbon dating.  David Young and Ralph Stearley offer an example of a radioactive isotope: rubidium.  According to Young and Stearley, there are two isotopes of rubidium in existence: the stable rubidium-85, 85Rb, and the unstable or radioactive rubidium-87, 87Rb (Young and Stearley, 391).  The radioactive isotope of rubidium contains thirty-seven protons and fifty neutrons, which are infinitesimal particles found within the nucleus of the atom (Young and Stearley, 391).  Over time, rubidium-87 will become strontium-87, 87Sr, by exchanging a neutron for a proton.  This is called beta decay, as the isotope slowly disintegrates, whilst maintaining its mass, since protons and neutrons are almost equivalent in mass.  The term carbon dating is used when the unstable isotope of carbon, carbon-14 undergoes beta decay.  Scientists and the vast public believe that, with careful and extensive analysis, the age of a biotic or abiotic artifact can be determined through this process; thus, scientifically speaking, the age of the oldest rock or fossil determines the age of the earth.

There exists two dominant explanations for the origin of the earth; scientific and religious.  The former utilizes the prevalent and widely accepted Big Bang Theory; the sudden existence of the universe.  As said to have occurred 13.8 billion years ago, the theory indicates that matter condensed into a miniscule area in space and, suddenly, the matter scattered about the empty expanse (Howell).  According to the National Air and Space Administration, exactly one second subsequent to the aforementioned condensing, “a ten-billion-degree [Fahrenheit] sea of neutrons, protons, electrons, anti-electrons (positrons), photons, and neutrinos” (NASA).  Additionally, photons, the physical partic les that cause visible light, were scattered about the universe.  The Big Bang Theory would then explain the creation of physical phenomena such as light and gravity.  A separate rationalization is required for the birth of both the Milky Way and the Solar System, the latter of which proves to be significant based upon the understanding of star-birth nebula, a hot gas made of helium and hydrogen and dust.  According to the New York Times, the nebula condenses to create a star, as a ring surrounding the new star, called a dust cocoon, forms.  If the dust surrounding burns away during the birth process, a lone star will remain; if not, a system is born (Drakeford, Corum, Overbyes).  Astronomers believe the process of star birth to be similar to the process of the birth of a galaxy, but this hypothesis has yet to be confirmed (University of Leicester).  However, scientific research admits holes that remain void of remediation.

Nevertheless, a different explanation for the creation of the universe and earth involves solely a supernatural creator.  The Jewish Tanakh, most commonly known as the Old Testament of the Christian Holy Bible begin with the creation:

“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.  The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. And God said, ‘Let there be light,’ and there was light.  And God saw that the light was good. And God separated the light from the darkness.  God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, the first day. And God said, ‘Let there be an expanse in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters.’ And God made the expanse and separated the waters that were under the expanse from the waters that were above the expanse. And it was so. And God called the expanse Heaven” (English Standard Version, Genesis 1:1-8a).

The Jewish and Christian creation story continues to describe the creation of the universe in six days.  It elucidates the origin of light—the moment it began—and the existence of an infinite space, the latter elucidation The Big Bang Theory fails to explain.

Regardless, contradictory explanations between the scientific and theological communities strive to solidify the age of the earth.  Scientific communities hold that, according to carbon-dating and geology, the earth and moon are approximately 4.5 billion years of age (USGS).  This, consequently, creates a large window between the supposed formulation of earth and the first piece of evidence of human civilization at around 4,000 B.C.E.; a window reserved for the faulty, consistently disproven, theory of macroevolution, the theory regarding the “speciation and the origin of the divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and the development of complex organs” (Resznick, Ricklefs).  Subsequently, macro-evolutionists make hasty, scientifically unsupported assumptions around the roughly 4.4 billion years between creation and civilization.  Howbeit, the religious counterargument remains. Creationist theologian John James explains that the time in which God created the earth, derived from the creation story, is to be taken literally in his journal, The Age of Earth: A Plea for Geo-Chronological Non-Dogmatism (James, 39).  James clarifies that the earth was made in six, consecutive earth days, by referencing the Ten Commandments: “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.  Six days you shall labor, and do all your work, but the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God. For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day” (English Standard Version, Exodus 20:8-10a, 11a).  Apparently, God’s description of day resonates with the human impression of a day.  Therefore, the age of the earth, according to theology can be calculated.  The calculation begins with Adam’s genealogy, as it is recorded in Genesis 5, and Noah’s genealogy, recorded in Genesis 9 and 10, up to Abraham, who lived near 2,000 B.C.E., according to secular and non-secular sources.  Dr. Floyd Nolan Jones in The Chronology of the Old Testament calculates the approximate beginning of man to be 4004 B.C.E.; however, Dr. Jones does not remain to be the only person to arrive at this conclusion, for preceding chronologists, too, calculate a commencement between the approximate dates 4000 and 5000 B.C.E (Nolan, 29).  Thus, according to the Bible, the age of the earth is approximately 6,000 years of age.

Even more specifically to Christianity, Jesus evidently supports a young earth.  Young-age formation creationist and theologian Terry Mortenson in The Master’s Seminary Journal confirms that Jesus “believed in a literal six-day creation week, which only occurred a few thousand years ago,” (Mortenson, 79).  Jesus says, “For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation that God created until now, and never will be. And if the Lord had not cut short the days, no human being would be saved. But for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days” (English Standard Version, Mark 12:19-20).  Mortenson dissects the verse, stating that Jesus said “beginning of creation” rather than “the creation of man”, implying that man was around for the entirety of time.

Before going into full depth on the flaws in radiocarbon dating, it is imperative to understand the Great Flood, a secularly confirmed, historical, worldwide flood that, according to the Bible, destroyed all living creatures on earth:

“Make yourself an ark of gopher wood. Make rooms in the ark, and cover it inside and out with pitch. This is how you are to make it: the length of the ark 300 cubits, its breadth 50 cubits, and its height 30 cubits. Make a roof for the ark, and finish it to a cubit above, and set the door of the ark in its side. Make it with lower, second, and third decks. For behold, I will bring a flood of waters upon the earth to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life under heaven. Everything that is on the earth shall die” (English Standard Version, Genesis 6:14-17).

Historical academics are reasonably confident in the occurrence of the flood.  World-renowned underwater archaeologist, Robert Ballad tells ABC News that his team discovered an intact vessel of an ancient shipwreck, made of all wood.  He believes this discovery to be a pavement to finding more evidence of the biblical period (Effron, Millman, Taylor).  The flood buried excessive amounts of carbon, coming from living plant and animals, causing the ratio to be 1:500 of the calculations accepted today (Baumgarder).  And, although radioactive decay can estimate the level of isotopes within a rock, it relies heavily on an arbitrary initial amount of isotopes, and holds that the isotopes could not have diluted into or out of the rock.  The former is, for now, impossible to accurately measure, while the latter is untrue for any submergence of fossils into hypothermal fluids, more specifically, Noah’s Flood (Alcorn and Darnell).  Additionally, radiocarbon readings can vary greatly based upon the isotopes used, for a heavier isotope delivers a much older reading than a lighter isotope (Alcorn and Darnell).  The obvious discrepancy gives significant reason to inquire the hypothesis of an old earth, yet, the argument can burrow deeper still.

Addressing the unreliability of radiometric dating cannot be based only on theology; a purely scientific argument is required.  Fortuitously, the hypothesis of an old earth can be tested based solely upon the countless experimental conclusions that further substantiate the unreliability of radiocarbon dating.  James Connelly and Martin Bizzarro, scholars in the fields of physical cosmology and chemistry, perform a mathematically and chemically intense study of the inaccurate age of the earth and moon derived from radiometric dating through studying the beta decay from an isotope of Uranium, 238U, to an unstable isotope of Lead, 204Pb.  The scholars first admit the issues within current methods, stating that most models are guilty of constraining the first stage of the decay, since these models attempting to explain the lack the necessary physical properties, such as gravitational force or sticking property, of the example.  The scientists recognize the need for a bulk m-value, which is a ratio between the isotopes of lead, all in relation to either unstable isotopes of Lead, 206Pb and 204Pb.  Then, to previous research, the scientists make adjustments. For example, Connelly and Bizzarro state that during the formation of the earth-moon system the earth lost over ninety per cent of the Lead, which, subsequently, allowed the formation of oceans.  Based upon the research the scientists accept their hypothesis; that the age of the earth is at least one-hundred million years younger than what is perceived (Connelly and Bizzarro).  Consequently, radiometric dating, alone, created an overwhelmingly large error in quantifying the age of the earth.  Although the scientists perceptibly adhere to an old age hypothesis of the earth, their research sheds light upon the errors that are followed by many.  Nevertheless, research continues to emerge.

Experimental evaluation, for example, further discredits the reliability of accepted dates of artifacts, as contamination can heavily interfere with correct dating.  A substantial “discrepancy between carbon-14 soil dates and true ages results from the complexity of soil genesis, a continuous process of accumulation and decomposition of organic substances” (Geyh, et al., 409).  Plant residues within the soil may evince a higher maturity; accordingly, Eldor Paul calls the organic matter in a soil “a mixture of an unknown number of compounds” (qtd. in Geyh 410).  Geyh substantiates his claims as he employs data gathered from investigation sites.  The first site produced soil samples of extremely high carbon-14 ages, giving appropriate grounds for envisaging contamination.  Finding accurate carbon-dating data, first, requires the organic humic acids and humins to be extracted from the sample by dissolving it into hot sodium hydroxide, NaOH, and, then, precipitating it with concentrated hydrogen chloride, HCl (Geyh, et al. 413).  At the close of the process, a negligible amount of humic acids remain.  In conclusion, Geyh states that the ages of the soil can differ by up to 10,000 years.  If Geyh correctly executed his experiment and this true, then radiometric dating of organic samples cannot be as reliable as assumed.

Inorganic and organic samples can also be ambiguous in age.  Qualitative experimentation and analysis of abiotic compounds, even, can disprove the old-age formation theory.  Dr. Robert Gentry in The Young Age of the Earth examines coal samples.  Coal possesses certain physical properties, such as the ability to develop halos from polonium found within it.  Gentry hypothesizes that the halos that were believed to have been developed over millions years could have been developed over only a few millennia.  The hypothesis was confirmed through applications of practices regarding radiometric dating.  Upon entering the wood, the uranium left residue behind, resulting in a decay product.   Gentry “measured both the amount of uranium in these coalified logs, and also the amount of lead, the decay product. On the assumption that the decay from uranium to lead has been uniform…[he] arrive[s] at the conclusion that these logs were buried together quite recently” (Beesley).  He, then, quotes his research, stating that the quantitative time period in which burial and coalification of the logs occurred was “within the past several thousand years” (qtd. in Beesley).  Additionally, Dr. Gentry is not the only person to accept the theory of a young-age earth formation.  Geological scholar, Professor Raphael G. Kazmann published a symposium titled “It’s About Time: Is the earth 4.5 Billion Years Old?” to Geotimes shortly after Gentry published his discoveries, holding that:

“since the deposits from which the coalified wood was obtained are considered to be at least of Cretaceous age and possibly of Jurassic or Triassic age, the ratio between [uranium and lead] should be low.  Instead, some such halos have been found with uranium-lead ratios ranging from about 2,200 to over 64,000.  If isotope ratios are to be used as a basis for geologic dating, then presently accepted ages may be too high by a factor of 10,000, admitting the possibility that ages of the formation are to be measured in millennia” (qtd. in Beesley).

In plain speech, since this ratio between the uranium and lead isotopes were exponentially larger than expected, then a young-age formation thesis is far from implausible.  Furthermore, the apparent ages could be severely inaccurate, for Gentry’s data suggests that the Cretaceous, Jurassic, and Triassic ages all occurred within the past thousand years rather than the past 225 million years.  Dr. Gentry’s findings proves not only that coal can be formed quite rapidly, but, also, that geologists were incorrect in their assumptions of an extensive coal development process, and his data and conclusions remain unrefuted.

Nevertheless, anti-creationist scientists attempt to battle this robust evidence.  Matt Young and Paul Strode present an impassioned argument in their book entitled, Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), in which they dedicate four pages to shoddily refute creationism, and, even less, to refute a young-earth formation.  The lack of evidence against a young formation is made clear, for they only offer two concrete examples, both of which can be disproven.  The first of which is a reference to radiocarbon dating in an effort to support the claim that “all fossils were not deposited within a single, short time” (Young and Strode, 54).  If this truly is the scholars’ beliefs, then they are blatantly ignoring the unyielding conclusions of Dr. Robert Gentry, where he proves that coal was, likely, deposited simultaneously.  On the subject of coal, Young and Strode claim that “fossil fuels, such as coal and oil, also count against the flood geology” because it would have taken millions of years for the coal to develop.  This was also disproven by Dr. Robert Gentry’s findings.  The authors then, in an attempt to jeer at the Bible, question where the water for the flood came from, stating that the author of Genesis believed that people of the time believed that the earth was flat, the sky was a dome, and that “water occupied the region above the dome” (Young and Strode, 55).  This is simply ridiculous.  Moses, the author of Genesis, clearly knew where the water came from, for it is written: “the fountains of the great deep burst forth and the windows of the heavens were opened,” (English Standard Version, Genesis 7:11b) meaning that water came from the ground, not simply the sky.  However, what is most interesting, and also quite amusing, is the evolutionists blind hypocrisy, in that they accuse creationists, namely Christians, of fabricating false evidence (which is silly, based upon clear facts), when they follow the, both scientifically and logically, unsupported ideology of macroevolution; a theory that Charles Darwin, their apparent founder, could not support.  For example, macro-evolutionists attempt to substantiate their lack of evidence by stating that the process happens too slowly to record it in humans, but, such is not the case for rapidly growing kingdoms, such as bacteria.  Upon experimentation, it is concluded that one bacterium does not sprout into a different species of bacterium (Fischer).  Additionally, Louis Pasteur debunked the idea of spontaneous generation, a failed theory that macro-evolutionists continue to believe, even 160 years after its death.  “In a simple, but brilliant modification, the neck of the flask was heated to melting and drawn out into a long S-shaped curve, preventing the dust particles and their load of microbes from ever reaching the flask. After prolonged incubation the flasks remained free of life and ended the debate for most scientists” (Paustian).  In conclusion, evolutionists not only have little leverage against young-age formation theories, but also lack evidence for their own theory.

The misconception regarding the age of the earth is much deeper than what is commonly known, but due to creationism-adverse scholars in the scientific community, the probability that the counterargument to the old-age theory will not be explicitly stated in schools and other public domains is almost certain.  In other words, the misconception will continue to be perpetuated.  Anyhow, the exhaustive facts that offer the alternative theory of a young-age formation of the earth creates an overwhelmingly large margin of error within previous theories.  It is also likely that conflicting opinions within the scientific community will not come to a concrete, proven explanation of when and how the earth was formed.  Until then, however, the age of the earth will remain unknown.

Annotated Bibliography

Alcorn, Randy, and Jim Darnell. “Major Flaws of Evolution.” Eternal Perspective Ministries, 3 October 2010. http://www.epm.org/resources/2010/Oct/3/ten-major-flaws-evolution-revised/. Accessed 19 March, 2017.

Taken from the Eternal Perspective Ministries, a group that perpetuates Christian beliefs of creation rather than Evolution, co-writers Alcorn and Darnell explore ten misconceptions surrounding evolutionist theory.  Alcorn and Darnell make significant points backed with accurate and supported scientific information to refute the ideas of evolution, such as the fact that evolution is conservative, and not creative.  However, for the purposes of research paper, just a few of the arguments made will be used in the paper.  The seventh flaw will serve to back up my argument concerning the uncertainty of radiocarbon dating, and it also gives some insight on the isotope theory, which was confirmed six years later in a later annotation.

The Young Age of the Earth. Directed by Mike Lee Beesley, written by Robert V. Gentry, Alpha Productions (III), 1996.

Dr. Robert Gentry uses science to prove a young formation of the Earth in his film.  He uses coal and the different properties of, suspected, old pieces of coal to support his assertion that it is possible that the polonium within the coal which created halos inside of coal could have been created over only a few thousand years rather than tens of millions of years.  He derives this information from given or known chemical data surrounding the properties of radioactive or unstable elements such as uranium and polonium.  He talks about ideas concerning isotope ratios that were discovered in the mid-1970s that were unrefuted at the time, and remain unrefuted and increasingly supported to this day.

Baumgarder, John R. “C-14 Evidence for a Recent Global Flood and a Young Earth.” Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, vol. 2, 2005, pp. 587-630.

Connelly, James N., and Martin Bizzarro. “Lead Isotope Evidence for a Young Formation Age of the Earth–Moon System.” Earth & Planetary Science Letters, vol. 452, 15 Oct. 2016, pp. 36-43. EBSCOhost, doi:10.10.16/j.epsl.2016.07.010.

Old research methods are commonly used in order to understand the age of the Earth is and the research behind it.  Connelly and Bizzarro published a journal concerning the age of the earth, showing through scientific and chemical applications, that the accepted age of the earth is erroneous.  More specifically, the scholars explain the importance of factoring in the inflections of the isotopes of the radioactive element, uranium and the poisonous element, lead. The research estimates the Earth has to be at least one hundred million years younger than what is perceived now.  With this and other errors being found, the argument for a misconception surrounding the age of the earth is supported.

Corum, Jonathon, Jason Drakeford and Dennis Overbye. “Birth of a Star.” New York Times, uploaded by New York Times Science, n.d., http://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000003302881/born-from-dust.html.

Fischer, John M. “Debunking Evolution.” New Geology, 2013. http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html

Geyh, Mebus A., et al. “The Unreliability of 14C Dates Obtained from Buried Sandy Podzols.” Radiocarbon, vol. 25, no. 2, 1983, pp. 409–416. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/div-classtitlethe-unreliability-of-span-classsup14spanc-dates-obtained-from-buried-sandy-podzolsdiv/C8ABC49C02E907F80DBEE21E71949C77

Instead of an academic journal regarding the inaccuracy of carbon dates, Geyh has resolved to publish the lab report of his findings of carbon-14, denoted C14.  However, instead of focusing on the research concerning the Great Flood and its effect on radiocarbon dating, it concerns only contamination of samples that tend to create quite a large percentage error, and thus, unreliable ages.  The research will serve to greatly strengthen the argument against the reliability of carbon dating by adding, yet another, issue concerning its accuracy and ability to detect the true age of the Earth.

Howell, Elizabeth. “What is the Big Bang Theory.” Science.com, 22 June 2015. http://www.space.com/25126-big-bang-theory.html. Accessed 26 Mar. 2017.

Hodge, Bodie. “How Old Is the Earth?” Answering Genesis, 30 May 2007. answersingenesis.org/age-of-the-earth/how-old-is-the-earth/.

James, John. “The Age of the Earth: A Plea for Geo-Chronological Non-Dogmatism.” Foundations (Affinity), vol. 71, September 2016, pp. 39-51. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid,uid&custid=s8863137&db=rfh&AN=ATLAiG0V170123000702&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid.

With a call for non-dogmatism, James calls for people to look beyond the widely accepted, but, based upon previous research, incorrect, age of the Earth.  Although not as thorough in Biblical references, the book delves into a similar thesis as discussed by Mortenson; that the age of the Earth is clearly given by God.  Instead of using bible verses as the main source of information, however, James finds it necessary to reference many scholars and researchers within the religious and philosophical field, while citing helpful information.  Since the topic of the age of the earth needs heavy amounts of research, the document would serve a great purpose in providing background information.

Lauren Effron , Jenna Millman and Bryan Taylor. “Evidence Noah’s Biblical Flood Happened, Says Robert Ballard” ABC News, 10 December 2012, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/evidence-suggests-biblical-great-flood-noahs-time-happened/story?id=17884533. Accessed 19 March 2017.

The article from ABC News divulges the findings of Robert Ballard, one of the most well-known archaeologists in the world.  He claims to have found the remains of Noah’s Ark from the Great Flood in Genesis.  The occurrence of the Great Flood is under great speculation in the scientist community due to rejection from evolutionist and anti-creationist community. Regardless, Ballard inserts history on the Mesopotamians and their recollections of the flood.  Not only does this signify the Bible and its events, but it can also be manipulated to support the argument concerning radiocarbon dating.  The argument heavily surrounds the fallibility of human reasoning and scientific methods of acceptance of a young-age earth.

Mortensen, Terry. “Jesus, Evangelical Scholars, and the Age of the Earth.” The Master’s Seminary Journal, vol. 18, no. 1, 2007, pp. 69-98. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid,uid&custid=s8863137&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001583741&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid.

Mortenson takes an interesting approach to the argument concerning the age of the Earth.  He uses biblical evidence to support the idea of, what is now called, young-age creationism.  Mainly, he examines the New Testament and organizes the paper to reflect Jesus’ idea of the age of the Earth.  It gives verses from the Bible to back up the argument, which makes sense, with the understanding that the journal surrounds theological ideas.  The information given here would provide a good historical background to the controversy surrounding the myth, since it is not something that is normally organized into an academic paper.

“The Big Bang.” NASA Science, n.d., science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang.

Paustian, Timothy.  “Spontaneous Generation was an Attractive Theory to Many People, but was Ultimately Disproven.” Through the Microscope. n.p., n.d.

Ricklefs, Robert E., and David N. Reznick. “Darwin’s Bridge Between Microevolution and Macroevolution.” Nature, vol. 457, no, 7231, 2009, pp. 837-42.

Seiglie, Mario. “Prove Evolution is False – Even Without the Bible.” Beyond Today, 7 Jan. 2012. https://www.ucg.org/vertical-thought/prove-evolution-is-false-even-without-the-bible.

“The Age of the Earth – Radiometric Dating.” United States Geological Survey, 15 Dec. 2016. https://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/parks/gtime/ageofearth.html.

“The Milky Way.” University of Leichester, n.d., www2.le.ac.uk/departments/physics/research/xroa/astronomical-facilities-1/educational-guide/galaxies-1/the-milky-way.

Young, Davis A., and Ralph F. Stearley. “The bible, rocks and time.” The Bible, Rocks and Time. Intervarsity Press, 2008. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,cookie,url,cpid,uid&custid=s8863137&db=rfh&AN=ATLA0001706609&site=eds-live&scope=site&authtype=ip,uid.

Informally speaking, Young has published a book that serves, quite frankly, as a goldmine of information regarding the young-age creationist theory by factoring in historical, geological, and biblical arguments together.  More specifically, the chapters on radiometric dating—previously called radiocarbon dating—the harmonization between scripture and geology, and evidence gathered from sand and fossil graveyards will work wonderfully to support the argument that the world is not as old as believed.  Clearly, the radiometric dating will belong with the other evidence gathered on this method of determining the age of the Earth.

Young, Matt, and Paul K. Strode. “Why Creationism Fails.” Why Evolution Works (and Creationism Fails), Rutgers University Press, 2009, pp. 54–58, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt5hj59j.13.

The source is described as an impassioned argument for evolutionist theory and against creationist theory.  The heated, emotional tone of the authors make the authors seem somewhat incredulous, which is quite the fodder for the paper.  The author makes arguments surrounding radiocarbon dating methods, incorrect theology, and inappropriate jeering at the Bible.  This source provides a counterargument for the argument for a possible and likely young age formation of the earth.  Many of the arguments introduced by the authors, such as the argument concerning coal’s so-called legitimate age, regardless of several scientific evidence pointing to the effects of the great flood.  Additionally, the scholars spend the majority of the chapter ridiculing old-age creationists, most likely because the scholars had not enough fodder against young-age formation ideas.

Featured Image Photo Credit

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s