Challenging the Age of the Earth: A Biblical Perspective on Dating Methods - Part 1

Modern science has been pushing the idea that our universe is billions of years old. When arguing this worldview, they often turn to dating methods that have placed archeological findings in periods that are claimed to have occurred millions or even billions of years ago. Many Christians have begun to implement an old-earth worldview into the Bible, leading to large debates regarding the meaning of Genesis 1. Questions such as, "Did God intend for a literal 24-hour day in His account of creation?" have prompted individuals to implement fallible science into the infallible Word of God.

However, if we approach Genesis the way Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others did, we see ordinary days, despite uncertainties surrounding dating methods and claims of billions of years. Are we willing to stand on the authority of Scripture or the authority of man? As with any piece of God's word, when something seems to contradict the Bible, we delve into the text, its context, and the literature surrounding it. If after careful examination there still seems to be a contradiction, we shouldn't question God's word but rather the fallible understanding of man.

Think about how time affects our understanding. When we're talking about things that change over time, like dating methods, it's important to know how they started and how they've changed. What was there at the beginning? How do we know the starting quantity? How has it changed since then? Has the rate of change stayed consistent or has it varied? Do we know if there was any contamination in the sample? 

Understanding these basics helps us figure out how long things have been happening. But it's not easy, especially when no one was there millions of years ago to prove it. We try hard to figure out when things started and to track them over the years, but it's complicated and there are often things we're not sure about. The point to grasp here is that every dating method has its flaws, except one: creation itself. When we examine various dating methods, a majority of them seem to contradict the notion of billions of years. 

For instance, we can start with a simple example. Consider the accumulation of salt in the oceans. Using current research, secular data has found an overall net gain of salt in the ocean each year. But here's the catch: if we assume that the rate of salt accumulation has remained constant over time, the oceans would date back to 62 million years, a huge difference from the estimated billions of years old.

Now this is still older than what Biblical dating would entail, however, in Genesis 6-9, we are told about Noah and the global flood. This certainly would have disrupted the rate of salt accumulation in the oceans. Consequently, while billions of years cannot be substantiated through salt concentration, the notion of a young Earth, around 6,000 years old, remains unrefuted by this method.

Let's move toward some of the more well-known methods of dating, specifically radiometric dating methods. This method relies on radioactive elements and their half-lives—the time it takes for half of the element to decay into its daughter elements. For instance, you might have heard of uranium-lead or potassium-argon dating methods. These are the most common methods that scientists point to when claiming an old Earth, however, archaeological findings have shown inconsistencies.

For example, in Australia, researchers drilled down to a lava flow covering a forest with woody trees. Using potassium-argon dating, they estimated the lava to be 45 million years old, but when they carbon-dated the wood, it showed an age of 45,000 years. How could 45,000 year old trees have been covered by 45 million year old lava? These time estimates are nowhere close to each other.

Another example can be seen in New Zealand where volcanic eruptions have occurred in recent history. This means that we know the exact age of the lava, and therefore, should be useful for testing the accuracy of modern dating methods. Surprisingly, or unsurprisingly depending on your worldview, the potassium dating of the lava flows yielded ages of millions of years old.

Scientists who are shown these studies are quick to claim contamination, meaning that these recent discoveries have been somehow mixed with samples that are millions of years old, giving us false results. However, this explanation appears convenient and selectively applies only to data suggesting a young Earth. Conversely, when results indicate antiquity in the millions of years, contamination is seldom considered a plausible explanation. Evidently, the conclusions drawn by these scientists seem influenced by preconceived worldviews, not by the science itself.

Let’s move on to possibly the most well-known method, carbon dating. In many lay discussions concerning the Earth's age, carbon dating is often heralded as the definitive evidence refuting the young Earth perspective. However, it's often misunderstood. Unknown to many, carbon dating is only effective up to about 100,000 years because, beyond that timeframe, the amount of detectable carbon-14 becomes negligible due to its relatively short half-life. Therefore, if anyone tries to use carbon dating as evidence for millions of years, you already know that they are uninformed and don’t know what they are talking about.

So, as stated earlier, after about 100,000 years, carbon-14 becomes undetectable in a sample. So, if something is truly millions of years old, we shouldn't find any carbon-14 in it. Yet, researchers have found carbon-14 in dinosaur bones and coal deposits, which are claimed to be millions of years old. Once again, skeptics conveniently attribute this to contamination without any evidence, however, rigorous studies have ruled out this possibility.

I understand that this was a lot of information. If you would like to ask me questions, I would love to discuss any questions you may have and attempt to point you in the right direction. My Instagram page is gracefulapologetics. Feel free to follow and direct message me there. I will soon be adding part two to this series because there are plenty more examples of why the old Earth worldview is unbiblical and has questionable results.

My goal is to empower God's people to effectively combat these challenges so they can once again proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ with confidence. It's crucial to recognize that the age of the Earth is not a salvation issue; however, it directly impacts the authority of God's Word. When we allow external ideas to reinterpret scripture, we undermine its authority. Therefore, it's imperative for Christians, especially leaders, to take a firm stand on the literal interpretation of the six 24-hour days of creation, thereby upholding the integrity of scripture.

Instagram Page: https://www.instagram.com/gracefulapologetics/