Age of the rocks

Using the obvious reading of Genesis 1-11 and Exodus 20 v 8-11 the creation of the earth took place about 6000 years ago, with the world-wide Flood about 4400 years ago. Jesus, and the New Testament writers, imply their support for a recent creation through their statements (see Mark 10:6, Luke 11:50-51, Romans 5:12, 2 Peter chapter 3; also the following article is a helpful discussion of why Genesis 1 should be taken literally: http://creation.com/the-meaning-of-yom-in-genesis-1). This has important implications for the dates assigned for rocks, fossils and geological features such as canyons, river valleys etc. All school/academic textbooks reflect a time-line which involves millions of years and all documentaries/news reports have a similar time-line; therefore providing reasons for believing these features are recent is important in any defence of the Bible as an accurate record of world history.

One of the reasons why Christians can feel intimidated by claims made by scientists about the age of the rocks is that we assume that all scientific statements are equally valid. However, it is important to distinguish between 'operational science' and 'origins science'.

'... science can never be a standard for absolute truth. The sort of science with which most of us are familiar involves watching

things happen (observation) and using repeatable experiments.

Call it operational and observation science if you like. But, when

we try to understand events of the past we are asking an historical question, which means that ultimately we have to use historical

not scientific categories. This doesn't mean science can't contribute to historical questions, but only that science can never provide us with the final answer. And the science involved in such is a

different sort of science – we call it historical, forensic or even

origins science'

see http://creation.com/its-not-science

Therefore when dealing with issues that are essentially historical in nature, such as the age of the rocks, or of a geological feature, e.g. canyons, one should not be intimidated by the prevailing scientific sentiment. Whilst one assumes that the scientific evidence is reasonably accurate as evidence for an historical event, it does not carry the authority or weight that at first sight one would anticipate. The reason for this lies in the difference between 'operational science' and 'origins/historical science'. When studying historical events, at best, science can only provide small fragments of information the reliability of which is never certain because the past can never be subject to repeatable experiments. Where it is available, the most important source of information about the past will always be first hand accounts, and it is the absence of this which hampers historians' attempts to recreate the story behind past events; particularly those events prior to 500BC – a point that is often overlooked by historians of ancient civilizations, which I will explore later on.

The Christian who wishes to defend the notion that the rocks are only thousands of years old is not without good reasons for their belief in a recent creation - see below.

Coal and Diamonds, traditionally dated as millions of years old, have been tested for carbon 14 and, through that method, are assigned ages of only thousands of years.

(see http://creation.com/diamonds-a-creationists-best-friend).

Likewise, dinosaur bones dated 65 million years old have also been tested for carbon 14 and have, through that method, been assigned an age of thousands of years.

(see http://www.dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm) This confirms a growing suspicion that dinosaur fossils may not be that old since one fossil of a dinosaur was found to contain remnants of haemoglobin in the fossilised bones. http://creation.com/dinosaur-soft-tissue-and-protein-even-more-confirmation)(4) An even more remarkable case is that of a fossilised ink sack of a squid, dated over 100 million years old, which it was discovered contained ink that was still usable. (see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/wiltshire/8208838.stm and see http://creation.com/fossil-squid-ink) If we accept these fossils are only thousands of years old then we would have to accept that all the rocks they were embedded in are only thousands of years old – in which case the theory of evolution does not have the time-scale required. Therefore we live on an earth which is potentially very young and in which the animal kingdom must have been created by an all powerful Creator. (See Romans 1:20). For more evidence that soft tissues in fossils is not an isolated phenomenon see http://www.icr.org/soft-tissue-list/

Another reason for believing that the age of rocks is not the age assigned to them comes from polystrate fossils – this is where a fossilised tree trunk passes through many layers of rock which have traditionally been given various ages separated by many millions of years. As it is impossible for a tree to be fossilised in that position over many millions of years, the more logical conclusion is that these rock layers were formed rapidly (probably during the world-wide flood of Noah's day – see http://creation.com/polystrate-fossils-evidence-for-a-young-earth)
Probably the most extensive and, for my mind, the most conclusive reason for believing in a recent worldwide flood creating the sedimentary rock layers we see today is the flatness of the layers of rock we see around us when they are exposed to view. The most spectacular version of this is the Grand Canyon, where it is very clear to see, because the layers are often of various colours. However, as a test, look at any other example of rocks which are exposed and where layers exist, and notice that they are almost certainly flat ( or in the rare occasions where they are bent/folded they would preserve their flatness if you were to unbend them). The significance of this is that these flat layers show little or no sign of erosion anywhere on the face of the earth – strongly suggesting they were all laid down roughly at the same time – in most cases during Noah's flood (see http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v4/n1/no-slow-erosion).

There are other reasons for believing the rocks are young (see http://creation.com/age-of-the-earth for 101 examples.)