It’s by Dr. Andrew A. Snelling, AIG’s Director of Research. He’s a geologist. Here’s a link to his impressive biography. This is the question AIG received:
Isn’t everything relatively the same age with only a few days difference? If God created all matter in 6 days and matter can neither be created nor destroyed in our universe then isn’t everything the relatively the same age? So why do people try to ‘date’ rocks etc. if everything was created in 6 days. Don’t we already know when all things were created?
Good question! Here are some excerpts from Snelling’s response. We’re omitting some scripture quotes and links, and we’re also adding a bit of bold font for emphasis:
You are, of course, quite correct that, based on the authority of the Bible, God created the universe in six days, and therefore, all the original matter God created during those six days should be relatively the same age. That’s what God’s Word clearly teaches.
All right! That makes geology simple. Everything we see is 6,000 years old. Let’s read on:
Subsequent to the Creation Week, the history of the earth unfolds in the book of Genesis with the Curse and then, about 1,650 years later, the cataclysmic global Flood in the days of Noah. At that time the whole face of the earth was changed, as the waters that covered the earth eroded rock materials and swept away all the creatures “in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life” (Genesis 7:22) that weren’t on board Noah’s Ark. Thus, billions of plants and dead animals were buried in rock layers laid down by water catastrophically all over the earth. In a relative sense these rock layers are therefore younger than the rock layers created by God during the Creation Week.
What? Those rocks were still created during the First Week, weren’t they? He continues:
Similarly, during the Creation Week there was a sequence of events over those six days during which God created the different components of the universe and the earth. Thus, on Day One we are told He created the earth, and it was covered in water. Subsequently, on Day Three He created the dry land.
He discusses geological events during Creation Week (as if he were there) and then declares:
Thus, we can see that on the basis of God’s Word we could expect different rock layers to have different relative ages — based on the model I described above, the Day Three rocks would be younger than the Day One rocks of Creation Week; the Flood rocks are younger still; and any post-Flood rocks are the youngest of all. These relative age relationships can be seen in the stacking of the rock layers around the earth.
That still doesn’t change the age of the rocks. Even if it did, it’s only a matter of days — Flood or no Flood. Here’s more:
As I said before, we know from God’s Word the absolute age of the original created rock materials. They are about 6,000 years old. Similarly, we know from God’s Word that the Flood occurred about 1,650 years after the Creation, so therefore, Flood rocks are about 4,350 years old.
Huh? Moving along:
Not all rock layers across the earth’s surface are exposed to view in canyons like the Grand Canyon. In many places there are just isolated outcrops, so it is difficult to determine where those rock layers fit into the relative sequence of Creation Week rock layers, Flood rock layers, and post-Flood rock layers. Not all Flood rocks have visible fossils in them. So in a relative sense we could use some of the dating methods to give us the relative ages of such isolated rocks so that once they are placed in the biblical sequence of earth history we would know their absolute ages.
Are you following this? It doesn’t seem that Snelling is doing anything to date rocks, other than consulting his bible. Another excerpt:
Ironically, the radioactive dating methods, though flawed in terms of being able to provide absolute ages, may still help us derive relative ages. For instance, older rocks dating back to the Creation Week should have more radioactive decay products (daughter elements) in them than the younger Flood rocks. And this is what we do find.
Wow — radioactive dating methods confirm creationism. We never knew that! On with the article:
Of course, secular geologists use the same radioactive dating methods to yield interpreted ages for the rocks in terms of millions and billions of years. However, they derive these interpreted ages because they assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant over millions and billions of years of the slow rates at which we measure these processes today. But the geologists were not there over the supposed millions and billions of years to check and measure that the radioactive decay rates have always been constant at today’s slow rates. This is an assumption they make, which is absolutely contradicted as wrong by God’s Word.
Right. Creation scientists, on the other hand, know that rates of radioactive decay in the past were whatever is necessary to confirm the biblical chronology. We can’t go on with this thing so we’ll jump to the end:
So thanks again for your enquiry. I hope these brief comments are a help to you.
Oh yeah — a big help. Now we understand everything. Well, not quite everything. For example, The Flood should have distributed fossils of every type all over the globe, or at least they should be distributed randomly — some Tyrannosaurus rex fossils should be in Australia, and others at the North Pole. That’s not what we find; instead, we find them localized, presumably where they lived. Nor do similar (and presumably related) species — whether living or recently fossilized — radiate outward from the landing place of the Ark to their present-day habitats. We’re confident that AIG has the answer to these problems. Perhaps one day they’ll reveal it to us.
Copyright © 2013. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.