A. Overall Lesson Objective

B. Learning Competencies

C. Lesson

Questions about the age of the earth are frequently asked. The answer, as said in previous lessons, is entirely different between the naturalistic and biblical views. Here is the same table from Unit 3 Lesson 1 that summarizes the differences.

There are reasons why the earth and the rest of the universe should be considered young, but we need to review the assumptions in popular dating techniques first. They are popularly considered scientific fact. In fact (no pun intended), dating techniques are dependent on assumptions. Those assumptions assume a ‘deep time’ view of the universe, so a young-earth potential discovery is generally not considered possible. But, is there a way to check the assumptions that lead to a radiometric dating that yields ‘deep time’ answers? There is, and that is what has been done several times to check the validity of answers that come from radiometric (including carbon) dating techniques.

First, one must understand the ‘carbon clock.’ Carbon is a naturally occurring substance on earth and is present in living things, but particular types of radiometric (or isotopes) of carbon begin to decay into other types once something dies. So, a ratio of types of carbon act as a clock. This is where assumptions begin, because there are factors that affect the rate of the change of ratios of types of carbon. Carbon is a naturally occurring element on earth and is present in living things, but a particular radioactive form (or isotope) of carbon, decays to change into nitrogen at a steady pace. Living things exchange carbon with the atmosphere all the time (plants remove it, animals and humans breathe it back into the atmosphere) so the ratio of this radioactive type compared to the normal type of carbon in living things is the same as that in the atmosphere. But once something dies and stops exchanging carbon with the atmosphere, since the radioactive form slowly disappears and is not replenished, the ratio gets smaller the more time passes. So it can be used as a clock, provided one’s assumption is correct about what it was to start with, i.e. when the creature died. Assumptions (and adjusting for them in the calculation) are crucial; we know that the industrial revolution with its burning of fossil fuels has greatly changed the ratio as it has added much non-radioactive carbon to the atmosphere. But the Flood (which buried huge amounts of pre-Flood vegetation, including that to form the fossil fuels) would have also altered that ratio in the first few years afterwards, making ‘ages’ of objects buried in that time look ‘older’. When calibration is carefully done, the ages that result from the analysis yield young-Earth types of numbers – including for objects supposedly millions of years old, that are thus not even supposed to have any radioactive carbon left in them!

[Research note: RATE and carbon dating]

What about checking the numbers? This has been done by dating of Mt. St. Helens new lava flow material as well as other recent lava flows. The dates from labs were on the order of millions of years, when the right answer was a couple decades. Do you see the problem? What dates does a scientist look for? If ‘deep time’ assumptions are used, then ‘deep time’ results are generally what you get. The problem in educational institutions is the assumptions that affect dating, which are highly affected by the belief system in naturalism, are never stated. Regardless of the dating techniques, there is ample evidence that the classic dating methods are not accurate and cannot be relied upon in most cases.

🦕 CT? If dating techniques show widely varying numbers but they are still employed, what would be the reason why they are still used?

Dating techniques, even physical ones that will be discussed, are not always usable. We were not there, and not all conditions were known. There are indicators from several spheres, however, that indicate a very young earth—in keeping with the age of the earth from a biblical world view.

The first is continental erosion. One can ask the following question: Do you believe that every mountain and area that is high is subjected to some amount of erosion? The answer, of course, is ‘yes.’ So, what is the rate of erosion? 1 or 2 mm per year? 10-30 mm per year? Take a reasonable guess? Then, do the math to calculate the time needed for the mountain to erode into a small hill. The answer is invariably on the order of a few million years, but many mountains today are still high and craggy. What has happened? There is very little erosion because the mountains are recent. The earth is young!

What about salt content of the oceans, which is going up because of natural salts from the continents washing into the sea? If this had been happening for billions of years, the seas would not be as they are today, where the salt content is still very modest.

Earth’s magnetic field is decaying rapidly. The rate indicates, when an original state is estimated, that earth is less than 10000 years old. The Great Flood, which has left indicators that rapid reversals may have occurred, would have further hastened the rate of decay.

The fossil record is one of the best indicators of a young earth, and it is the very thing that supposedly helps imagine ‘deep time.’ In a ‘deep time’ scenario, every layer of rock is equated to a long period. If it was laid down from a flood, however, there is no long period. The Mt. St. Helens volcanic eruption, for instance, shows that hundreds of layers of rock were laid in hours.

In addition, there is no evidence of erosion between layers of sedimentary rock, which would be an obvious indicator of long periods of time between layers. The layers that contain fossils make the problem for long age beliefs even worse. They show mollusks, fish, jellyfish, and other soft tissue living things quickly buried—all before any scavenging, rotting, and deterioration. Long ages, with this in view, are simply not possible. There are fossils of fish giving birth and animals with stomach contents that are identifiable. Put these things together and we have the evidence of the Genesis Flood along with its various effects.

In the 1990s there was a discovery of dinosaur tissue that is not completely fossilized (covered in Unit 3, Lesson 12). There are reports of the consternation of scientists regarding how this could be true in view of the assumed ‘deep time’ ages of the earth. These findings challenge ‘deep time’ concepts.

Add to this issue the recent discoveries in genetics, where it is apparent that the human race is carrying forward mutations from previous generations. When one assumes a long age of human history, the cumulative mutations should have brought about the demise of the human race a long time ago. Instead, we ‘appear’ young with a recent recorded history. A ‘deep time’ past is getting harder to defend.

Unfortunately, most children are only presented with ‘deep time’ concepts, Big Bang, and naturalistic viewpoints. Newly developing discoveries, and there are many like those summarized above, are not reaching the books in classrooms.

[Research note: dinosaur soft tissue]

🦕 CT? There is a record of a conversation, where a professional, who presented the first official paper on the discovery of fossilized jellyfish, is met with disbelief by colleagues. The colleagues simply could not believe that it was possible, even in the face of the evidence to the contrary. Assess the reason for the disbelief. Explain your answer.

[Research note: fossilized jellyfish]

None of these examples are sufficient to construct a strict method of dating things, except in the most general terms, but they do show the viability of a young earth. In contrast, traditional radiometric dating techniques simply disallow young earth consideration because of the ‘deep time’ assumptions.

How we see things, as a result, is heavily affected by what world view we have. Most ‘see’ millions of years because that is what has been taught and assumed for the last century. But, the earth is young in a biblical view, where the recorded generations are precise, and increasing evidence supports this view. In the biblical view God marks a beginning, and God’s hand in the Flood is clearly seen. So, how old does the earth really look? Thousands of years makes the earth old, but young relative to the ‘deep time’ naturalistic view where no God is permitted.

D. Assignment

You tell me, if you were to be the head of the department of history for a big university, what should be included in a world history course? Construct the major sections of a table of contents that shows what you thought. Do origins play a part? Why or why not? Justify your answer.

E. Learning Activity

The biblical world view recognizes that God made time and space, but He is eternal. Time and eternity are different, but it is difficult to picture or think through. Divide into opposing teams. Make a skit that displays or illustrates how time and eternity are different to a group of little children. Discuss and compare your presentations.

F. Concluding Assessment

Traditional dating methods are often based on assumptions that require ‘deep time’ assessments. There are other methods of dating, however, that show a young earth. The biblical world view records a young earth (thousands, not billions of years).