July 15th, 2015 | By admin
By Paul Holland
Imagine just a moment that you walked into the kitchen at home and saw your mom or wife washing dishes. Let’s say she was washing all utensils, all silverware – forks, knives, spoons. You watched her washing dishes and noticed as you looked at the clock that she washed one item every minute. You watch her for ten minutes and, sure enough, she has washed ten utensils in those ten minutes. One item every minute. And you wonder, How long has she been doing this?
Now, that question is the same question that paleontologists and geologists ask themselves when they are dating something. How old is this rock? How old is this tree? How long has the Niagara Falls been falling?
So, how would you determine how long your mom/wife has been washing utensils? You would count the washed utensils, right? Both of those behaviors are scientific – examining the rate – one utensil per minute; and counting the end product – let’s say 35 utensils. So, you draw the conclusion that she’s been washing dishes for 35 minutes. Is that accurate?
Well, you have to make certain assumptions before you know that this rate is accurate…
First, you have to assume that Mom/Wife has been washing those utensils at the same rate the whole 35 minutes. Is that a safe and/or reasonable assumption? You do not know if she has sped up or slowed down over those 35 minutes.
Second, you have to assume that Dad has not removed any of those utensils, dried them and put them away. Whether you actually see Dad or not does not matter. Has he removed any of those utensils? You do not know if he has and, simply by observation, you cannot know if he has.
Third, you have to assume that there were no washed utensils beside the sink before Mom/Wife even started washing. Maybe she had already washed some earlier, maybe not. Simply by observation, you cannot know if all those 35 utensils were washed during that 35 minute time period.
Now, these three assumptions are exactly what evolutionists do when they try to date the earth, especially with the dating of rocks.
First, evolutionists have to assume that the rate at which elements lose neutrons, changing from one element to another, has been constant over the past four billion years.
Second, evolutionists have to assume that the rocks have not gained or lost either “parent” or “daughter” element (except through the decay process) throughout those whole four billion years.
Third, the biggest and weakest assumption of evolutionists is that there would be no “daughter element” in the rock at the beginning. When God created the world, how much lead was in the rocks of the earth (which results when a certain uranium isotope loses neutrons).
Now, creation scientists – and evolutionary scientists who will be honest with the facts – have shown and know that all three assumptions cannot be proven and are false.
So, never let so-called “dating techniques” shake your faith in the Scriptures. We do not know what rocks looked like the day God created them. Nor do we know what effects the destruction of the world in the flood would have had on rocks and the decay process.
Geology does not prove evolution is true nor that the Genesis account of creation is false. It actually shows that Genesis is very consistent with what we know about the history of the earth: A sudden creation of fully formed organisms and a catastrophic change killed a whole lot of organisms!