Thursday, July 2, 2009

Evidence for Young/Old earth?

Hey guys, just wanting to do some research into the straight forward evidences for an old earth and some evidences for a young earth.
If you know of any good reputable articles, then let me know...

I will be looking around and acknowledging different view points,

Many thanks,



  1. Hey man, have a great time at camp and have a fantastic Fourth of July weekend!

    I've included a few links (and attempted to avoid bias sources) for your perusal - one of them was definitely posted by some kind of genius and the rest are ok too...!

    Take care dude,

  2. Hey I'm back now...obviously LOL

    Thanks heaps!

    I'm stuck in the middle at the moment about young earth/old earth views so my fiancee and I are going to look into it a little more.

    I figured that if sincere Bible believing christians like David Pawson and RtB etc accept an old earth and show rational Biblical explanations then there must be some credibility to it:)

    I don't want to prejudice their views and I hope to look into it more.



  3. Fourth of July? LOL

    That's American, I'm Kiwi (NZ)

    We were taking a young people's group from our church out on a camp.
    It went well, although the weather turned bad on us :(
    It was a good time.
    Sharing quiet times that we had done with the Lord and reading His Word. We got a big projector and watched a movie on it. We also had wars with the young fallas using some hard nuts. Ouch! They like ganging on the leaders!
    We also sent them on big treasure hunt.

    All good though,


  4. Hmmmm,

    And this one was I can understand :)

  5. Hey Matt,

    What do you make of this? I thought I would get balanced view and sought out AiG.
    I found your links really interesting, thanks heaps!
    But here is something I found from AiG about radiometric dating and it's inaccuracies:

    "We know that radioisotope dating does not always work because we can test it on rocks of known age. In 1997, a team of eight research scientists known as the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) set out to investigate the assumptions commonly made in standard radioisotope dating practices (also referred to as single-sample radioisotope dating). Their findings were significant and directly impact the evolutionary dates of millions of years.3

    A rock sample from the newly formed 1986 lava dome from Mount St. Helens was dated using Potassium-Argon dating. The newly formed rock gave ages for the different minerals in it of between 0.5 and 2.8 million years.4 These dates show that significant argon (daughter element) was present when the rock solidified (assumption 1 is false).

    Mount Ngauruhoe is located on the North Island of New Zealand and is one of the country’s most active volcanoes. Eleven samples were taken from solidified lava and dated. These rocks are known to have formed from eruptions in 1949, 1954, and 1975. The rock samples were sent to a respected commercial laboratory (Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Massachusetts). The “ages” of the rocks ranged from 0.27 to 3.5 million years old.5 Because these rocks are known to be less than 70 years old, it is apparent that assumption #1 is again false. When radioisotope dating fails to give accurate dates on rocks of known age, why should we trust it for rocks of unknown age? In each case the ages of the rocks were greatly inflated."

    And this was one of the strongest evidences for an old earth?
    Am I missing something?

    Taken from:



  6. Isn't it curious that AIG doesn't bother to mention once that potassium-argon dating doesn't work accurately on rocks younger than about 2 million years? That doesn't explain the results returned but I thought I'd point it out. Here's a quote from talkorigins :

    " * First, an instance where a method fails to work does not imply that it does not ever work. The question is not whether there are "undatable" objects, but rather whether or not all objects cannot be dated by a given method. The fact that one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches.

    How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it? Yet, when five radiometric dating methods agree on the age of one of the Earth's oldest rock formations ( Dalrymple 1986, p. 44 ), it is dismissed without a thought.
    * Second, these arguments fail to address the fact that radiometric dating produces results in line with "evolutionary" expectations about 95% of the time (Dalrymple 1992, personal correspondence). The claim that the methods produce bad results essentially at random does not explain why these "bad results" are so consistently in line with mainstream science."

  7. Da Bomb,

    My apologies for lumping you in with my N. American friends; I was going around dropping July 4th best wishes everywhere and when you said you were going away for the weekend my brain pulled a fast-one on me!

    Anyway, I'm glad to hear you had a good trip, it sounds like a lot of fun.

    "I thought I would get balanced view and sought out AiG".

    If you were looking for a 'balanced view' then you shouldn't have gone to AiG! They have a stated position that [paraphrasing] "any evidence that contradicts [their, young earth, interpretation of] Scripture must, by definition, be wrong"

    Does that sound like they're being fair to the evidence, or would change their views if evidence came to light?

    Anyway, here's a good article, by a Christian, that gives as good an account of radiometric dating as I've seen.

    and here's a good resource for further reading;


  8. Hey thanks guys!

    Looking into what science is saying properly and what the Bible says about an old earh...I am looking into the old earth creationist view more seriously.

    Yes, if AiG says the following "any evidence that contradicts [their, young earth, interpretation of] Scripture must, by definition, be wrong"

    Then I would rather acknowledge old earth theologians and scientists. I can however understand why AiG take this stand.
    I agree with them that the Bible is the truth.

    But as Pawson says, if science contradicts scripture then either the scientist has misinterpreted the evidence or the Bible has been misinterpreted.

    I remember odds and ends of interesting things AiG brought to the forefront, therefore I wanted their view.

    "How many creationists would see the same time on five different clocks and then feel free to ignore it?"

    I suppose you meant Young Earth creationists.
    Thanks for the point about unreliable dating before 2 million years. I'll take your word for it.

    Many thanks guys,


  9. Did some more reading on K-Ar dating, I'm a little wrong.The numbers wikipedia give as being the lower limit for the age of samples is 100,000 years. It also mentions that the history and composition of the sample must be known in order to correctly interpret the measured age of the sample. Solid inclusions in the lava and the rate it cooled affect the reliability of the dating method.

  10. So, are you saying that this type of dating is not reliable on something created before 100,000years instead of before 2 million years?

  11. Yeah, but I think it depends on your equipment, if you have good equipment you can date samples as young as 100,000 years old. But if your equipment is less sensitive then you wont be able too. The reason is that you always have some error in your measurements. If that error is must greater than the age of your sample the result is mostly meaningless. It's just something I thought AIG should have mentioned. Not the actual problem with the dates returned. You'll have to read Wikipedia or some other resource if you want to find out more about how dating methods can return incorrect results.

  12. Wow I didn't realise you were also a Kiwi Da Bomb.

    One thing I would like to point out is that there are many many different types of dating methods. And they all have their uses and limitations, the thing is the people who use them already about these limitations and know that you use the right tool for the right job. Very Frequently places like AIG highlight examples where the wrong tool was used, and then trumpet it as a reason not to trust any of the tools.

    I'm sure you have seen, like I have, on various blogs like Eric Hovind people proudly proclaim how the age of the recent Ida specimen is rubbish because Carbon Dating isn't useful beyond 50,000 years. Of course the funny thing was that no one ever used Carbon Dating, in this case it was Argon-Argon dating. But people have their little catchphrases and quickly present them where they think they are appropriate.

  13. I think a more accurate answer is that the Bible shouldn't be used for answering scientific questions. It's not meant to be a historically accurate document. Do you really think that the writers 3000 years ago knew anything about the age of the Earth? Modern science has only been around ~250 years or so, which is well outside the scope of the Bible. If you feel the need to see theological answers, then read the Bible. If you seek scientific answers, then read Scientific American or search Google Scholar articles. It's dangerous to assume that the Bible holds answers to things it does not seek to answer.

  14. Hello Seek the Truth,

    Cool name.

    Do you really think that the writers 3000 years ago knew anything about the age of the Earth?

    Well if Abraham and others heard God as well as they did then I would not be surpried if GOd shared with them the age of the earth :)

    I agree with you to a point that the Bible doesn't state how old hte earth is and focuses on other more important aspects.

    If you seek scientific answers, then read Scientific American or search Google Scholar articles

    But then again, modern science as been wrong. Be careful how much faith we put in science of today.
    When I look back and view the science 100 years or so and beyond I would not like to put my faith in some of it...why? because science can be wrong (obviously). How correct are we today? What will people think of our beliefs 200 years from now?

    Seek the best conclusion with the evidence we have before us. it is what God requires of me and is the most sensible decision any person can my opinion.

    The amazing thing is that the Bible actually gives some accurate scientific judgements, like Job and his earth sphere.

  15. Surely you mean Isaiah and his Earth Circle? If the earth was called a sphere anywhere in the bible Christians would be shouting it from the rooftops.

  16. Oops, my bad. You are right, it is Isaiah and it is a circle.

    I was however thinking of these interesting verses from Job 26:7-10