Thousands
Or Billions
The ages of the earth’s components and
neighboring bodies are additional pieces in the elementary puzzle of evaluating
the Bible’s accuracy. While every relevant branch of science plainly supports
the existence of life on this planet for billions of years, the Bible
undeniably claims that life began only about 6000 years ago. Thus, I included
this chapter to reveal the information we have that enables us to place a true
age on our planet, its contents, and our celestial neighbors. You should soon
understand that there’s no logical way to harmonize the two conflicting
accounts respectively provided by science and the Bible. When rendering a
verdict on the ages of these objects, I hope you will adhere to observable data
rather than succumbing to blind faith. The material contained within this
chapter is an expansion of similar ideas offered in Science To The Rescue.
Dating The
Earth
Although
the Bible doesn’t directly state that the earth itself is only 6000 years old,
a moderate amount of common sense will verify this is the position it must
take. Expanding on this point, the book ambiguously states that God created the
earth “in the beginning” (Genesis 1:1). However, the earth could not have
logically formed prior to the sun (even though Genesis says just the opposite),
which is verifiably alluded to be
6000 years old in the Bible. We’re also able to observe planets in other solar
systems consistently forming after their celestial anchors. In fact, it’s
scientifically impossible for life to thrive on a planet without a proximate
location to a star. Thus, Creationists feel compelled to discover evidence for
a young planet in order for their dogma to remain inerrant. Even though an
overwhelming amount of data suggests that the earth is older than 6000 years, these
self-ordained “scientists” are not looking for any evidence disputing their a priori
beliefs. This method of research is, to say the least, blatantly dishonest.
Those of us viewing all the data from
an unbiased perspective can throw out everything we know about astronomy and
assume that the earth is a unique case where the planet formed before its star,
yet still have more than ample evidence to debunk the young earth claim.
Ironically, Christian geologists made the
primary breakthroughs in discovering the earth’s genuine antiquity during the
late-eighteenth century. Baron Georges Cuvier was the first to publish
observations of a multilayered fossil column, noting that many of the species
found in these columns were extinct, settled to very specific layers, and
became more complex as he spotted them closer to the earth’s surface. Having no
intention to contradict the church’s presumably infallible teachings, Cuvier
concluded that there must have been a series of creations and catastrophes
omitted from the Bible that were necessarily responsible for creating the
physical evidence for these phenomena. Naturally, Cuvier’s discovery is also an
important factor for the previously discussed fossil age determinations. James
Hutton, another early Christian geologist, found mixed vertical and horizontal
rock layers in adjacent areas, leading him to conclude that an exceedingly
drawn out natural phenomenon had to push on the earth in order to form the
vertical layers. Again, the evidence suggested that the earth was far older
than the 6000-year Genesis insinuation.
Only after the aforementioned technique of
radiometric dating arrived on the scene could geologists offer such an accurate
guess on the earth’s age. Equipped with this knowledge, scientists can now
measure quantities of radioactive elements within the earth’s rocks.
Researchers have performed this impartial scientific analysis on several
thousand rock samples located deep within the fossil columns, and the results
are consistently in the billions of years for samples estimated to be this
ancient via more primitive dating methods. Although researchers believe that
early volcanic activity is responsible for destroying the earth’s oldest rocks,
we can still be certain that specimens exceeding four billion years in age are
very much in existence. Similar to the rocks on the earth, most meteorites
eventually finding their way onto our planet date at four billion years as
well.
Those with the futile agenda of proving
that the earth has aged only a few thousand years will often point out the
uncertainty of how much of the forming isotope was present at the rock’s
conception. This much is seemingly true. However, when you consider that every
measured radioactive rock just happens
to contain the exact isotope arising as a result of the long-term decay of its
parent compound, it’s only logical to conclude that the secondary byproduct
wasn’t there at the rock’s formation. While some external factors may interfere
in a few isolated cases, there are foolproof methods of measuring isolated
samples to correct any variance created by such influencing conditions. The
only alternative left for young earth believers is to make the desperately
absurd claim that God created the rocks thousands of years ago to make them
look billions of years old in order to mislead anyone who went searching for
truth outside of the Bible. As ridiculous as this hypothesis may seem, I must
admit that the scenario wouldn’t be too far removed from God’s motives based on
what we’ll study in the upcoming chapters.
Using a procedure analogous to the
radiometric dating of rocks, we can determine which radioactive elements are
still present on and above the earth. If our planet is truly billions of years
old, we should expect elements with short half-lives to be absent from the list
of those still present in nature, while elements with long half-lives should be
the ones to comprise that very list. In other words, elements that transform at
a relatively rapid rate should have disappeared, but elements with lengthier
survivals should still be naturally observable. We cannot consider any element
with a replenishing source for inclusion in the list because its continuous
production will always yield a fresh supply of the element. Unsurprisingly, we
find that all eighteen criterion-meeting radioactive elements with a half-life
in excess of eighty million years are still found in nature, while all others
have disappeared. Thus, we can reasonably conclude that any radioactive
material with a half-life less than eighty million years has been present for
such a long period that we can’t find it naturally unless some chemical
reaction is currently producing it. After twenty half-lives, these elements
were in such low quantities that they were virtually undetectable when researchers
first performed this experiment many years ago. If the earth’s elements had a
starting point 1.6 billion years in the past, we would witness the exact
scenario I just described. This discovery opened the door for scientists to
place increasingly accurate estimations on the age of the earth, currently
believed to be 4.3 billion years. Incidentally, the odds that all these
elements would line up in this manner by chance are greater than half a billion to one.
Although these are the foremost techniques
we have for dating the earth, there are several more indicators telling us that
the earth is older than just a few thousand years. While these methods don’t
have the ability to directly support a multi-billion year old planet, they do inform us that the earth must have
necessarily been present longer than the apologetically proposed length of six
thousand to ten thousand years.
The
The tides of the earth’s oceans are
causing the planet’s rotation to slow by one second per day per 50,000 years.
Consequently, the relatively accelerated spinning of the earth millions of
years ago would have shortened the length of a day and increased the number of
rotations our planet was able to make per revolution around the sun. In a
complementary discovery, scientists had already observed coral fossil rings
exhibiting the notion that they thrived during a time when the year contained
nearly four hundred days.
The continuous spreading of the continents
has also provided evidence for our planet’s age. Once continental drifts
separated the Pangea homeland of the dinosaurs into
Ice layers in
In addition to radiometric tests, we can
date rocks by measuring the length of their subjected exposure to cosmic rays.
The observable aging occurs when a neutrino, a type of subatomic particle,
strikes a rock and reacts with certain minerals to form a measurable amount of
radioactive isotope. Using this analysis, rocks in undisturbed desert locations
are determined to be hundreds of thousands of years old, while rocks thought to
be relatively new, based on independent tests, indicate an age of only a few
thousand years.
As I mentioned in 101 Reasons Why Noah’s Story Doesn’t Float, we can use DNA as a
timepiece. In addition to revealing that humans had a common ancestor tens of
thousands of years ago, our DNA indicates that we had a much more distant
common ancestor with bacteria billions of years in the past. While there are
several more sources I could reference that would successfully defend the
undeniable antiquity of the earth, such as the evidence for numerous magnetic
pole reversals in the
Dating The
Heavenly Bodies
The authors of Genesis would also have
their readers believe that God created the stars on the universe’s fourth day (
How can light from a star be billions of
years old if God created the star only 6000 years ago? The hilarious apologetic
answer to this glaring complication is often that “God created the stars 6000
years ago but created their light in transit for us to be able to see them.” To
paraphrase this proposal, God is making us see things that never really
happened. This suggestion is a classic example of what has been termed a
“how-it-could-have-been-scenario,” which substitutes a painfully ridiculous and
nonsensical explanation for the obvious answer in the interest of apologetics.
It seems that no complication is too difficult for some Christians to invent
absurd justifications and phantom harmonizations even though they will consider
these acts to be logical violations when used by other religious sects to
justify alternative beliefs.
Thanks to the astronauts who visited the
moon and returned with rock samples, we’re able to use radiometric dating on
lunar rocks as well. Sure enough, the rocks found on the moon’s surface consistently
date around three to four billion years. However, scientists calculated the
approximate age of the moon well before specimens were ever available for
testing. The number of craters gave astronomers the primary clue.
It’s possible to observe the passing of
nearby asteroids and to determine how many travel through our region of space
over a set period. Considering the size of the moon, we can then determine the
likelihood of a single asteroid striking its surface. If we know how likely a
strike is to occur, it’s possible to mathematically derive the average length
of time elapsing between impacts. We can then quantify the viewable crater
evidence by counting the number of strikes on the surface and determining how
long it would take the moon to accumulate enough impacts to present its
battered condition. Again, we get a figure in the billions of years.
Yet another clue we have on the moon’s age
is the layer of dust present on its surface. Because there’s no real atmosphere
on our moon, the dust lays virtually undisturbed. Since we know the depth of
the debris and the rate at which it collects, we’re able to derive a third date
for the moon using only this information. Yet again, we arrive at a number far
in excess of one that would support a young biblical universe.
Dating the sun proves to be a bit less
conventional because it’s far too thermogenic to get anywhere near it. However,
we still have many clues to go on. First, as I mentioned earlier, we know that
the sun is necessary to sustain our viability. Since life on our world has
thrived for billions of years, it’s only logical to conclude that the sun has
enjoyed billions of years of coexistence with our planet. Second, we know the
sun is a star. When we observe the formation of other solar systems, we
discover, without exception, that the stars form prior to their surrounding
planets. Third, we know stars have life cycles. These enormous bodies of gas
start out as semi-organized masses of helium and hydrogen before coalescing to
form yellow stars similar to our sun. After ten billion years as a yellow star,
the concentration of helium in the center makes the star expand into a red
giant. A relatively short while later, the star will imminently explode and
collapse. Since we’re able to observe countless celestial bodies in all their
various stages of progression, we can determine how long they tend to remain in
these contrasting phases. Extrapolating this information to our own star, we
know that about five billion years were required for the sun to achieve its
present state.
Dating
Life
Before radiometric dating, there was the
“infamous” Charles Darwin. Scholars consider his 1859 manuscript, On the Origin of Species, to be the most
popular, if not the greatest, leap forward toward debunking the Bible’s
scientific accuracy. Darwin recognized how species are specifically adapted for
their respective environments and speculated on how they acquired this
adaptation. He also notes the struggles among members of species that lead to
survival of only the fittest members. In other words, only those members of the
species that are most willing and capable of adapting to changes in their
environment will be among the survivors. Most importantly for our discussion,
he correctly noted that these natural progressive events would take an enormous
amount of time to occur. In the nineteenth century, his theories were obviously
heretical to the church because anything other than a God-directed creation was
incorrect according to Christian teachings. In these somewhat more enlightened
times, Darwin’s work remains the cornerstone of modern biology and even
influences some contemporary Christian thought.
Scientists have located simple fossilized
organisms, such as bacteria, within rocks well over three billion years old.
According to the theory of evolution, plants and animals both evolved from
similar, primitive life forms. Since plants and animals are obviously much more
complex than the earthly array of prehistoric microorganisms, we would expect
their fossils to appear much closer to the earth’s surface. As you might recall
from Cuvier’s work, this is exactly what we observe. Through a battery of
analytical techniques, we’re solidly able to conclude that plants and animals
began appearing on earth around five hundred million years ago. Furthermore,
increasingly complex animals presenting advanced nervous systems appear well
after the more primitive, less evolved ones.
Human beings are much easier to date
because we’re relatively new to the earth and because our distant ancestors
left behind extremely helpful clues. Researchers were almost immediately able
to conclude that tools discovered in the late-eighteenth century were much
older than a few thousand years. Remains of ancient human-like creatures found
in the mid-nineteenth century prompted several expeditions to search for more
of these mysterious life forms. These human-like creatures would later become
known as the Neanderthal, of whom we are not likely to be direct descendants.
Recent fossil discoveries in Africa yielded ape-like human remains dating to
around a few million years, while paleontologists uncovered
two-million-year-old fossils of beings that evidently used two legs to walk
upon the African grounds. Furthermore, modern humans, Homo sapien, began to appear around 100,000 years ago. By the time
of modern man’s dominating emergence, fossil remains indicating our migration
to other regions of the world become readily apparent. Only 10,000 years ago,
humans became advanced farmers and hunters. The aforementioned tool discoveries
can now be carbon dated to verify their belonging to this era.
Anthropologists have also positively
affixed dates for dozens of additional human discoveries to a time prior to the
supernatural birth of Adam. Several examples are the domestication of sheep,
goats, turkeys, reindeer, water buffalo, cattle, horses, pigs, and dogs; the
uncovering of pottery in Japan, woven cloth in Turkey, astronomical markings in
South America, cuneiforms in Sumeria, calendars in Egypt, clay tokens in
Mesopotamia, paintings in Algeria, and mummies in Peru; and cultivation of
wheat, barley, potatoes, pumpkins, squash, lentils, beans, cotton, dates, peas,
peppers, rice, peaches, corn, flax, yams, bananas, coconuts, and avocados
throughout the world.
Very recently, archaeologists discovered
artifacts of a civilization on the ocean floor from inhabitants abandoning this
location due to the pre-Genesis ice age. Scientists long anticipated these
findings, even though no similar traces had been previously discovered, because
such expectations were simply the product of the known coexistence of humans
with the latest ice age. Once again, one cannot honestly ignore the obvious
biological complications with the Genesis creation story while maintaining its
scientific inerrancy.
The
Universe According To Genesis
Speaking of Genesis, all the information
we need to place a rough biblical date for the age of the earth’s contents is
contained within this book and the first chapter of Matthew. Genesis 5 gives
the genealogy and ages of Adam through Noah; Genesis 11 provides the genealogy
and ages of Noah through Abraham; Matthew 1 offers the genealogy of Abraham
through Jesus. More details on the ages of the Abraham through Jesus lineage
are available in the books of Kings and Chronicles. Due to sketchy detail, we
cannot place a precise value on the time elapsed between Adam and Jesus, but
the period in question is roughly 4000 years. It’s certainly no more than 6000
years. This is a universally accepted number by anyone who does not twist the
facts in order to meet an agenda. Add on the 2000 years since the start of the
Common Era to obtain the total 6000-8000 years between the purported events of
Genesis and whatever’s going on in your world at the present.
The genealogies provide us with a time
back to Adam, but what information do they provide for the rest of God’s
creations? Genesis 1:1 tells us, “In the beginning God created the heaven and
the earth.” The Bible gives no specific date for the earth itself, but as I
mentioned earlier, the earth has certain requirements to survive. However, God
created the contents of the earth and
universe during six consecutive sets of evenings and mornings, starting with
light on day one and ending with Adam on day six. We can easily conclude that
the earth’s contents and the remainder of the universe were, according to the
Bible, made only days before Adam. Therefore, biblical authors also claim the
sun, moon, stars, plants, and animals to be only about 6000 years of age.
Seeing as how anyone with a decent education in the past century knows that
this is embarrassingly inconsistent with the wealth of scientific evidence, the
search began to find a way around this complication in order to save the
Bible’s credibility. However, you will soon realize that Genesis is far beyond
hope.
As I mentioned in Science To The Rescue, the Hebrew equivalent for a day is yom. Technically, yom is used to communicate a short period of time, not necessarily
a day. Thus, Creationists have proposed that yom, in these early instances, means millions or billions of years.
However, the text unambiguously says, “And the morning (boqer) and evening (ereb)
were the [nth] day.” Yom clearly and unmistakably refers to a
twenty-four hour day in these passages. While yom may have slightly altered meanings in some other verses, there
is no possibility for such variation due to the added specificity of mornings
and evenings. Thus, Creationists must alter the length of these mornings and
evenings into millions or billions of years in order to accommodate scientific
observations into their ancient religious dogma.
A passage in Exodus even reiterates the
literal six day creation: “Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But
the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any
work…For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in
them is, and rested the seventh day” (20:9-11). Christian zealots inserting
their “figurative days” interpolation into the text refute its obvious meaning.
Genesis clearly maintains that God created his universe in six days only a few
thousand years ago. This is absolutely and undeniably wrong.
An alternative explanation commonly
offered for the apparent mistakes in Genesis is that even though the days are
clearly ranked as being the first, second, third, etc., the numbering of days
wasn’t intended to be consecutive. Letting that factor slide, this baseless
hypothesis still fails to consider the majority of problems created by Genesis’
statements. Yet another far-fetched explanation is that the authors meant for
the days to be figurative, not literal. In other words, Christian apologists
deem passages figurative when they
undeniably conflict with external information and deem them literal when they are not disprovable or
are necessary for furthering the apologetic cause. I doubt any Christian would
like it if a Jew asserted that the resurrection of Jesus was only figurative
simply because it furthers the Jewish cause, but Christians are committing the
same illogical method of assertion when implementing this defense. Besides, I’d
really like to know how blatantly biased apologists of any religion objectively
determine what is included in these figurative
versus literal classifications.
In all seriousness, these explanations are
additional examples of poor “how-it-could-have-been-scenarios” that ignore the
obvious meaning of the religious text. The Bible is simply stuck with a clearly
interpretable 6000-year-old date for everything but the earth itself. If we are
to twist and turn everything the Bible clearly states, we could literally turn it into anything from a
romance novel to a war manual. It’s from this inescapable conclusion that
Creation “Science” was born. Since there was no rational way to get out of the
date set in stone by Genesis, the selective search for young earth evidence
commenced.
Well, has anyone discovered convincing
evidence for the alternative apologetic position? Let’s just say that the
percentage of today’s scientists who believe that the earth is only a few
thousand years old equals less than one percent, a distribution yielded almost
certainly because the dwarfed minority holds their position out of dogmatic desperation.
These self-proclaimed scientists are determined to make all evidence fit with a
young earth while ignoring the completely overwhelming juggernaut of
counterevidence working against their predetermined conclusions. Such research
methods are very unscientific and blatantly dishonest because a true scientist
does not start out to prove something
one way or another. Such researchers should always remain impartial and
undecided before considering all of
the available evidence to make a rational and logical decision that is independent of their hopes and beliefs.
The Young
Universe Assertion
As I alluded to a moment ago, the field of
Creation Science is anything but true
science. Those who firmly trust that the earth is only 6000 years old are either
ignorant of the facts or have a religious agenda to meet. To reiterate the
earlier premise of this chapter, a significant piece of the Bible is flawed if
the universe is not 6000 years old. It’s extremely
rare to find a scientist who has abandoned the old earth theory in favor of the
new earth hypothesis. Those who firmly believe that the earth and the balance
of the universe are billions of years old arrive at this conclusion not to
intentionally destroy the young earth hypothesis, but because this rational
decision makes overwhelming sense in light of all the available evidence.
For brevity’s sake, this section will
discuss what I feel are the ten most popular arguments that Creationists use to
support a young universe. A brief summary of the reasons why we can refute each
erroneous apologetic conclusion will immediately follow each said proposal.
More detailed arguments and counterarguments for these statements, in addition
to other young earth suggestions, can be found in a variety of sources for those
particularly interested in the earth age “debate.” In fact, modern authors have
dedicated entire books or articles to each upcoming position. Contrarily, the
purpose of this section is simply to provide a somewhat concise introduction to
the pseudoscience of Creationism.
The sun is
shrinking at a rate at which it would have been too large for life on earth
millions of years ago. In 1979, researchers John Eddy and Aram Boornazian
published the rate of shrinkage measurements utilized in this argument. Since
we knew relatively little about the sun when they recorded their observation
many years ago, it was premature for readers to assume that the sun had always
been shrinking at the rate calculated. Our lungs also contract at a certain
rate when we exhale, but that doesn’t mean they’ll collapse within a few
seconds. The sun is a star, and we know that stars go through several phases in
their lifetimes. It’s also been demonstrated by a plethora of more recent
measurements, including eclipse shadow observations, that our sun exhibits
repeated stages of shrinking and expanding. In fact, we now understand that
these fluctuations are necessary for the sun to provide its heat.
The
depth and rate of collection of moondust tell us that the moon is only a few
thousand years old. The methodology used to determine how much dust would
collect over time was severely flawed when Hans Pettersson first carried out
the referenced study in 1960. A series of better-controlled measurements,
beginning with one by J. S. Dohnanyi in 1972, arrived at collection rates about
0.1% of the original expectation. In other words, the dust collected at a much slower rate than researchers
originally believed. Consequently, we would anticipate much less dust on the
surface of the moon. Because of these more representative undertakings, the
thin layer of lunar dust provides the moon with an age far beyond 6000 years.
The
moon has Uranium-236 and Thorium-230 that should have decayed billions of years
ago. You’ll need to recall what I mentioned earlier about radiometric
dating. Th-230 is a byproduct of U-238. Of course, if U-238 still exists,
Th-230 will as well. Indeed, U-238 does still
exist; and as long as it exists, Th-230 will be created as its byproduct.
However, lunar uranium ores continually produce U-236 under the right
conditions. If we can presently observe the creation of certain isotopes, such
as the case for lunar U-236, measurements using such isotopes are invalid for
determining an object’s antiquity for the previously mentioned reasons. Thus,
U-236 and Th-230 are inapplicable choices for measuring the moon’s age.
The
earth’s magnetic field is decreasing at a rate that wouldn’t have allowed life
tens of thousands of years ago. Thomas Barnes, the Creationist who
published this conclusion in 1973, used an incorrect model of the earth’s
interior, measured only one component of the magnetic field that doesn’t decay
in correlation with the rest, and ignored the earth’s polarity shifts. Taking
notice of any of these factors would have greatly improved his findings. Thus,
the foundation of such an argument is as flawed as Barnes’ research. Like the
sun’s diameter, the earth’s magnetic field is continuously undergoing a series
of fluctuations. The overwhelming majority of other studies, beginning with
those cited by T.G. Cowling in 1981, debunk these apologetically referenced
calculations.
The
depth and rate of formation of topsoil proves that the earth is only a few
thousand years old. This is somewhat similar to the moon dust theory, but unlike
the moon, the earth has a dynamic surface. Topsoil isn’t going to collect in
one place for billions of years, and it’s erroneous to assume that it will if
you take the time to make note of its constant erosion. However, topsoil has collected undisturbed for millions of years in isolated regions of
The United States. Even though the thickness of topsoil has no direct relation
with the true age of the earth, it ironically assists in debunking the young
earth hypothesis.
The
fossil layers had to be deposited quickly because of the lack of meteorites
contained within them. Most meteorites disintegrate while in the earth’s
atmosphere. Of those that survive the scorching journey, the impact often
causes them to shatter into fragments. A state of tranquility then subjects
those fragments to millions of years of natural erosive forces and chemical
decomposition. Considering how scarcely a meteorite strikes the earth, it would
be foolish to assume that there should be an abundance of meteorite fossils
readily found deep beneath the surface of the earth. We can’t even spot more
than a handful of craters when they’re unobstructed on the surface. Why, then,
would anyone anticipate an abundant discovery of meteorites in hidden places
that we can barely examine?
The
oldest living tree on the planet is 4300 years old, the era concurrent with
Noah’s ark. This desperate proposal doesn’t prove anything because the tree
in question will eventually die and have its title given to one of its newer
counterparts. This, of course, doesn’t mean that the earth will decrease in age
when it happens. Nevertheless, the irony of the apologetic suggestion is yet
again on the side of reason because different trees share ring formations
provoked by their common environment. Consider two trees in a yard: one was
born in 1750 and died in 1950; the other began growing in 1850 and is still
living. They will have a common ring pattern from 1850-1950 due to the
environmental phenomena that they simultaneously experienced over that period.
With this knowledge, researchers were able to find fossilized trees that shared
a ring system in their last days with the currently oldest living trees in
their youngest days. In other words, the fossilized trees had rings dating back
thousands of years before the commonalities began with the currently oldest
living trees. Thus, we are able to determine that the now-fossilized trees
lived a millennium before the 6000-year-old date placed on the mythical Genesis
creation. Additionally, these fossilized trees should have exhibited some
degree of damage caused by the global flood. And speaking of the flood…
The
human population growth rate can be traced back to the size of Noah’s family.
While it’s true that the human population has been growing exponentially in recent
history, it’s erroneous to suggest that it has always grown at this magnificent
rate because advances in health and technology are the primary contributing
factors for this recent boom. Exponential multiplication of species requires
nearly ideal conditions, such as those humans enjoy now. We even know that
disease kept population growth steady or in decline around the fifteenth
century. Furthermore, using such foolish Creationist logic, bacteria would fill
the earth in a matter of days due to their extremely high rate of reproduction.
Since bacteria don’t have an inexhaustible supply of resources, they are in
competition with one another to survive. Thus, they don’t have the means to
grow at an exponential rate and cover the entire earth, which would theoretically
happen in a matter of days. We can apply the same limitations to humans living
thousands of years in the past because their environment was anything but ideal
for rapid growth. Two children per two adults kept the population steady for a
lengthy historical period. An additional problem with this proposal is that no
manufactured wonders surviving from Noah’s era could have been constructed if
there were only a handful of people left alive after the alleged global flood.
Historical
records only go back thousands of years. This is partially true, but it’s
probably because people didn’t have both the capacity and the desire for
historical records. In essence, people would only keep written accounts once
two conditions were satisfied: important events came along, and people learned
to write. While the public may commonly believe that these two conditions were
met only a few thousand years ago, we’re fortunate enough to have cave sketches
depicting life tens of thousands of years before Genesis says the mystical
creation took place. Perhaps if people had learned to write a lot sooner,
apologists might be able to make a better case for the Bible in this regard.
Carbon
dating is flawed, inaccurate, and unreliable after 50,000 years. We can
check the accuracy of carbon dating by calibrating it with the tree ring data
mentioned earlier. Only on rare occasion does the discrepancy ever extend
beyond 5% within the first several millennia. Because of the ability to
synchronize this technique with the long established dating method of counting
tree rings, we can confirm the reasonable accurateness of carbon dating.
However, it is true that carbon
dating isn’t reliable after 50,000 years. For this very reason, no sensible
person uses carbon on objects believed to be that old. Due to the small mass of
carbon left in an object after ten half-lives, about 0.1% of the original
amount, a tiny error in the quantity measured can throw the determined age of
the object way off. For example, consider a rock with 100.000 grams of
Carbon-14. After one half-life, about 5000 years, it will only have 50.000
grams remaining. If we measure only 49.999 grams due to human error or slight
variation in the decay, we’re off by 0.001 grams, yielding a difference of one
month in age. This variation should not be of any appreciable consequence.
After 50,000 years, the rock will have approximately 0.100 grams of Carbon-14
remaining. If the same circumstances cause us to be off by the exact same
amount of 0.001 grams, we will measure the sample as having 0.099 grams, which
will put us off the mark by about 100 years! This is why we need to use slowly
decaying elements to measure older objects. Carbon is simply the standard for
measuring modern objects since it decays faster, thus yielding a smaller margin
of error on these samples.
Billions
The earth, sun, moon, and stars are
billions of years old. Plants and animals have been around for hundreds of
millions of years. Man first appeared tens of thousands of years ago. Every
piece of falsifiable evidence from every relevant branch of science tells us
that these statements are undeniably accurate. The fallible authors of the
Bible unambiguously purport that God created all these objects about 6000 years
ago because they didn’t have access to the technology utilized by contemporary
scientists. The only individuals still hanging onto this outdated superstitious
belief are the ones who desperately cling to dying apologetic agendas. Others
have unsuccessfully sought to rectify the Genesis account with preferential
scientific discoveries.
The erroneous
biblical claim of the earth’s creation is yet another reason why many
Christians have now turned their backs on a literal interpretation of the
creation tale. If we allow other religions the same amount of leniency, could
we ever possibly determine which one is making the legitimate claims? Due to
the overwhelming amount of observable, testable, and falsifiable evidence, we
can comfortably denounce the proclaimed authenticity of the Bible solely on its
erroneous, pseudoscientific claims.