In a previous article I discussed a conversation I had with an evolutionist, and when I challenged her to make a case for evolution, she directed me to an article titled, “What is the evidence for evolution?” Interestingly, it contained no evidence that could be substantiated by the scientific method to support evolution. Rather, the only empirical evidence cited favored biblical creation.
I refuted the examples presented, such as speciation, but now I will consider some of the other evidence featured in the article, such as geologic evidence. This is a big one, as many people are intimidated into accepting long ages, believing it to be proven. Yet scientists tell us that science isn’t about proving anything, but about providing the best explanation based on the evidence available. So lets’ take a look and see what we have.
The author states his case, “One of the most compelling lines of evidence for evolution in general and the system of geologic dates in particular is the fact that the various geological eras, as identified by the fossils they contain, always appear in the same order (except in a few cases where there is clear evidence of overthrusting) and always yield the same geological dates, no matter where they are unearthed.”
I’m glad the author provides an exception to his claim, as understanding the exceptions is helpful in refuting his claim. But even though he lists only one exception, there are many anomalies evolutionists must explain.
To make his case, the author points to radiometric dating, explains how it works, and touts how it has been scrutinized and refined over the last 70 years and is so reliable. He then mocks creationists for rejecting these claims, scolding us for not believing 70 years of peer-reviewed studies.
However, complaints like this demonstrate how little evolutionists know about creation science, or science as a whole. There are two competing worldviews, and the author is wedded to his, and ignorant of the other. That’s a major flaw in evolutionary theory. Evolutionists are often incapable of unbiased examination of the evidence. Rather, they are influenced by their own biases, then promote them to win support for their belief system. In essence, they’ve built a straw man to knock down.
If it could be demonstrated that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable to some degree, or if there are flaws in the peer review process, then the geologic evidence touted by evolutionists crumbles, and that’s exactly what I’ll demonstrate.
According to secular science, radiocarbon dating isn’t used to date anything older than about 50,000 years because carbon-14 decays quickly. Nonetheless, there’s measurable amounts of radiocarbon in fossil wood many millions of years old. This should not be the case if dating techniques are as reliable as evolutionists contend. Evolutionists predict there would be no carbon-14 in samples over 100,000 years old. Therefore, since examples abound, their theory has been thoroughly refuted.
As for radiometric dating– a process used to date rocks and fossils, evolutionists face many of the same problems. Scientists have found measurements of specific elements (helium in zircons) where none should exist if the samples were truly millions or billions of years old.
Another valuable piece of evidence demonstrating that radiometric dating techniques are unreliable lies in the rocks of Mount St. Helens, which erupted in 1980. According to radiometric dating, these rocks didn’t form during our lifetime, but between 340,000 and 2.8 million years ago. Of course, we know that’s not true since it was a well-documented event in recent human history. Therefore, it’s fair to conclude that such dating techniques are not as reliable as we’re told. This is often the case any time dating methods are used on rocks of known ages.
Further, in 1982, two years after the eruption of Mount St. Helens, a mudflow carved channels into the 1980 deposits and layers, demonstrating that it doesn’t take millions of years to form geologic layers. All this is evidence against millions and billions of years, and this is why dating techniques are NOT compelling evidence for evolution and long ages. Simply put, when evolutionists claim a rock or fossils are so many millions of years old, they can’t substantiate it with direct, observational evidence. They must use indirect evidence that can’t be corroborated, accept it by faith, and demand everyone else do the same. And that’s exactly what the author has done.
To address another one of the author’s claims, the peer review process cannot rescue them. Peer review is a human process, so it has flaws. Humans are biased, and incorrect assumptions abound. Sadly, those incorrect assumptions are often accepted by the scientific community as true. We know this because there are many examples of peer reviewed studies being overturned or removed after being exposed as false. The issue is there may be many false studies that may never be exposed, so embracing a flawed process is not evidence for evolution. Further, the secular peer review process is composed of evolution believers; so it’s not surprising that they publish studies promoting evolution, even when the studies are flawed. That’s to be expected.
Going back to the author’s main argument, there are many examples of out-of-order fossils. The author would like his audience to believe these are all cases of overthrusting (older strata pushed over younger strata at an angle less than 45 degrees), but not all of them are. In some cases, such as the Lewis overthrust in Montana and Alberta, it is assumed in favor of evolutionary theory, which is another example of bias being used as evidence. Other anomalous fossils have to be explained away by geologic processes too, like reworking and downwashing.
Finally, here’s an article demonstrating numerous times when the initial dating was incorrect and had to be revised years later. How is this possible if dating techniques are so accurate? I think the correct conclusion is that dating techniques aren’t as reliable as evolutionists lead us to believe.
In short, there is nothing compelling about the geologic evidence to favor evolution. At least not when evidence is examined in an unbiased way and properly understood. The evidence is always consistent with a young earth and catastrophic processes, such as the global flood described in Genesis. That’s why we find so many organisms buried together that look like they were buried very rapidly by layers of sediment.
sixdaysblog 
How can radiometric dating be unreliable when it is successfully used by the oil & coal industries to locate deposits? Would these companies lie about what they’re doing? They have no interest in defending evolution, they are just businesses trying to make money as efficiently as possible. Look up basin modeling for more information about what I’m referring to.
That’s a fair question. But I think it’s one you could answer if pressed. Consider, what are the requirements for the oil & coal industries to locate deposits? Is it required that the deposits be the age assigned to them? Or is it simply locating the deposit according its expected location in the geologic column? If the deposits are not accurately dated, could the oil & coal industries still find them by other means?
I’d suggest the answer is yes, the oil & coal industries wouldn’t have a problem locating the deposits if the layers were not the age they were thought to be. The true age of the deposits has nothing to do with the integrity of the oil and coal industry.
Creationists don’t deny the geologic column. We simply claim it isn’t composed of millions or billions of years of sediment. The oil & coal industries simply calibrate ages into something meaningful so they can locate the deposits. Finding the deposits is not a problem, regardless of the age assigned to them.
The geologic column is not a representation of long ages, but of the order in which sediment was laid. It is composed by the superposition of definitive sequences of sediment. Oldest on the bottom; newest on top.
Did you know that the standard geologic column consists of ten layers of strata systems (Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, Devonian, Carboniferous, Permian, Triassic, Jurassic, Cretaceous, and Tertiary)? Yet about 77% of the earth’s surface is missing at least seven layers of strata. And about 99.6% of the earth’s surface is missing at least one system. Further, none of the strata are uniform from region to region. In addition, overthrust, faulting and other mechanisms cause some layers to be inserted where they don’t belong. In addition, the geologic column is continuously being updated, so which version is required for the oil and coal industry to find the deposits? The one developed and published by William Smith in 1815, the one by Joseph LeConte in 1885, or the one published by the ICS in 2015? Finally, even though the Ordovician period is listed as 485 million years ago, it’s really thought to be 485.4 with an uncertainty (plus or minus) of 1.9 million years. Obviously this uncertainty isn’t a problem for the oil and coal industry. They don’t have a problem finding the deposits they’re looking for. But how is that possible if the industry can’t function without radiometric dating being accurate? Fear not. If radiometric dating were NOT reliable, the oil and coal industries would have no problem locating their deposits because, as you indicated, they have no interest in defending evolution and are just trying to make money as efficiently as possible.
However, if after considering the above and you know of someone in that industry who couldn’t find the deposits without radiometric dating being 100% accurate, I’d like you to introduce them to me.
I guess my question then is how can we understand what radiometric dating is actually doing when it gives date information that is “reliable” (for finding deposits) if this information is not accurate? Particle physics and geology as understood in mainstream science has to be an incorrect explanation for what’s happening but then what is the alternative explanation for the apparent regularity? Does that question make sense? We have a model that explains why radiometric dating finds deposits and that model would have to be incorrect so there must be another explanation assuming its practical success is non-miraculous.
Good question. To start with, I think we can make the case that radiometric dating is not accurate for the reasons stated previously, as well as other lines of evidence we could discuss. If that were not so, then there would be no reason to update the geologic column. It would be cut-in-stone, so to speak.
Next we can try to figure out why the industry is still able to locate their deposits, and an alternative explanation for the apparent regularity.
Radiometric dating provides us with a relative age that can be compared to other, similar strata. It can tell us if one rock is older or younger than another. As long as the underlying assumptions are consistent, then we should be able to locate our deposits. It’s not that particle physics and geology are incorrect. It’s just that the underlying assumptions behind them are wrong. It’s not the science that’s wrong. It’s the people imposing incorrect assumptions that are wrong. Other models would be just as successful. In fact they have been. I’d suggest it’s mostly a matter of calibration. That’s why they can still find the deposits once the column has been changed or updated.
Further, I’ve found that the oil and coal industry uses various techniques and technologies to locate deposits, many of which have little to do with their true age. Despite the variations and uncertainties in the geologic layers, geologists use a combination of methods to identify resource-rich areas such as:
1. Geophysical Surveys: Using instruments to measure variations in the Earth’s physical properties, such as seismic surveys to detect subsurface structures.
2. Core Sampling: This allows geologists to directly analyze rock layers and helps in understanding the composition and potential resource content of different layers.
3. Remote Sensing: Advanced satellite and aerial imagery technologies can provide valuable information about surface features and geological structures. These tools help identify potential areas for further exploration.
4. Exploratory Drilling: This is a crucial step in confirming the presence of oil or coal deposits. Companies drill exploratory wells based on geological studies and other data to assess the actual content of the subsurface layers.
5. Data Integration: Geologists integrate various sources of data, including geological maps, seismic data, well logs, and remote sensing information. This multidisciplinary approach helps build a comprehensive understanding of the subsurface geology.
6. Computer Modeling: Advanced computer models simulate geological processes and aid in predicting the presence of oil and coal deposits. These models take into account the uncertainties and variations present in the geologic column.
As you can see, knowing the true age of a layer is not required in order to find the deposits.