21 June 2001
POINTS OF ORIGINS: Radiometric Dating
by Dr. Glenn Jackson
I read your article about "Creationists have reason to doubt 'billions of
years' story" and I cheered. At school, we just finished a gen. ed. course
about the natural history of the southern Appalachians. It was a great
class. Of course, there was the mandatory speech about the rock formation
and how long it took and what evidence there was to support that it was 56.3
billions years, or whatever they said. And, as we all know, they totally
explain away any possibility of a relatively young earth. So, I was happy to
read your article and hear that you are taking a stand on the truth. How can
I argue against the "carbon dating" system that all my teachers believe in?
I would love it if you could give me some tips on how to successfully argue
the evidence against the "billions of years" story. Up til now, I knew very
little about what scientific evidence there was supporting creationists.
Thanks for your time and I hope you have a great summer!
Corey from Sevier County
Don't let them fool you. The case for radiometric dating is certainly
not watertight. Please check the copies of my past articles on the website
of the East Tennessee Creation Science Association (
etcsa.org) for more help on the dating methods used by evolutionists. You
can also get great information from John Woodmorappe's book The Myth of Modern
Dating Methods, which I believe is available through the bookstore at
You ask about the C-14 method. That's a very interesting topic in the
debate. Sunlight converts nitrogen (which makes up 78% of our air) into C-14.
We estimate that it would take between 30,000 and 90,000 years to fill the
air with C-14 and then level off at a stable amount. If the earth really is
only 6000 years old, then there has not been enough time for this equilibrium
to be reached. This means that C-14 levels are still increasing. When we
find an old bone or piece of wood and see that it has very little C-14 left
in it, that's not because it has been sitting around for 40,000 years. It
just means that when the living thing died, there was much less C-14 around
at that time. This invalidates any results using the C-14 dating method.
Of course, my critique is based on the assumption that the earth is only 6000
years old. The evolutionist position also depends on the assumption that the
earth is 4.5 billion years old. The data goes along with either theory.
Science logic tells us that this means that C-14 is completely useless as
proof for either side of the controversy. Think about it. You'll see for
yourself that this is true.
I HAVE TO COMMENT on the movie Evolution. (As the rating suggests, not all
the scenes and dialogue are appropriate for children.) The film keeps a
straight face while applying known principles of science, to tell an
absolute fairy tale story (sound familiar?). First, a meteor brings the
chemicals of life to Earth. The heat of entry into our atmosphere
"activates" the chemicals (instead of destroying them). The chemicals come
alive and create an atmosphere around them that contains methane and ammonia
- no poisonous oxygen. From that point on, Evolution continues until
intelligent life forms all by itself! The movie wants to tell a story that
is ridiculous and funny. It does. But it is the exact same story (as
outlined above) that my evolutionist friends expect us to take completely
Dr. Glenn Jackson holds four degrees in science and education from George
Mason University and University of Virginia. He has taught elementary
through college level sciences for over twenty years and in four states. He
is a lifetime member of both American Mensa and the Creation Research Society.
Return to Main Page