Many have been taught to accept old-earth time estimates as undeniable truth. I’ve debated plenty of people who insist science has proven the earth is 4.5 billion years old. They dogmatically claim this cannot be questioned, and anyone who does is “anti-science.”

But statements like that are deeply flawed. Dating techniques rest on assumptions, not absolute proof. Ironically, a recent Live Science article highlights these very problems from a secular perspective, questioning claims that the world’s oldest rock art is 67,800 years old.

First, it should be noted that those who insist published dates are settled facts are imposing their own religious worldview onto the data. Science itself is simply a tool for studying the world around us and gaining knowledge. It does not speak, think, or draw conclusions. Scientists do. Through the scientific method, researchers make observations, form hypotheses, conduct experiments, analyze data, and then interpret the results. To suggest that “science” has “proven” a particular age for an object is faulty reasoning.

Because science does not interpret itself, published dates are not infallible. They are estimates based on assumptions, limited information, and unknown variables. New discoveries can overturn old conclusions, forcing dates to be revised. That is how science works.

The Live Science article examines rock art dated at 67,800 years old using uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating. The headline asks: “But is the science behind that estimate flawed?” What a bold question! How could a scientist question published dating techniques??? The argument is the same as those made by creation scientists, yet the secular scientist’s criticism is accepted.

The article states, “A technique that has rewritten the timeline of prehistoric art may be overestimating the ages of cave paintings, some scientists say.” As a creationist, I agree completely. The dates have been overestimated.

We’re told there’s been a notable trend of researchers publishing older and older dates for ancient rock drawings. Some skeptics have begun to call these ages into question. One researcher, Georges Sauvet, has been especially critical, claiming that some are less cautious in a “race towards the earliest rock art.” In other words, there’s competition for prestige, funding and results, and where there’s competition, questionable practices can arise, leading to incorrect dates. Thus, according to Sauvet, our understanding of the past will be distorted if the dates are artificially inflated.

Sauvet goes on to make the case that other dating methods must be used to cross-date the original method, and refusing to do so “is not acceptable.” But if dating methods are already reliable, then why is relying on a single dating method unacceptable? I suggest he’s let the cat out of the bag, admitting what creationists have long argued… it’s impossible to know the correct date for certain. Dating methods are not direct observations of the past. They are interpretations based on assumptions about the past that no one witnessed.

After explaining how U-Th dating works the article states, “So, assuming nothing is added to or taken away from the system since the uranium was deposited, the ratio of these two isotopes can determine the age of a calcite layer deposit.” Once again, the cat is out of the bag. The key word is “assuming.” How can one be certain their assumptions are correct? You can’t. Real-world cave environments are rarely perfect closed systems. Water flow, contamination, leaching of elements, or later mineral deposits can all alter isotope ratios, skewing results dramatically- sometimes making samples appear far older than they are. But one can certainly assume their date is certain if they’re satisfied with the results. And that’s the rub.

The author states, “In theory, this type of U-Th dating can be an incredibly powerful tool for archaeologists.” Oh, but of course- “in theory.” Sauvet explained that the method assumes a “closed system.” But if the system was “open,” outside elements could alter the isotopes and distort the resulting date. That possibility alone introduces uncertainty into the process.

Another researcher, Adelphine Bonneau, admitted, “Dating of rock art is a particularly challenging subject” and agreed with Sauvet that the dates could be overestimated. Some cross-checks revealed discrepancies of 100,000 years or more. That’s not a minor discrepancy; it’s a fundamental problem with the reliability of the technique.

Researchers acknowledge that dating techniques, including radiocarbon dating, can be subject to various forms of contamination that can lead to distorted ages. Precautions and cross-checking are necessary, of course, but there will always be uncertainties because the past cannot be directly observed or repeated in a lab.

Finally, Bonneau stated, “Sauvet is right in principle, but if scientists do their job correctly, the dates are reliable.” However, that’s another big assumption- one that must be accepted by faith.

The bottom line is that dating techniques are not reliable in the sense often presented to the public. Many scientists have openly admitted the potential for significant error. This should not be controversial. And this is why creationists should not concede old ages. When the evidence is examined objectively, the door remains wide open for the young earth.