Young Earth Creationism is So 6000 Years Ago

Question from Cameron:
If the snow rings dating have been proven to be wrong (they represent cold and warm days not years) how could I come to believe carbon dating and other dating types. They seem like all a fraud to me. And like saying that the stalagmites in caves formed over millions of years when I could make one in my garage in just a few months.

Answer by SmartLX:
I assume you’re referring to Kent Hovind’s argument regarding the warm-cold layers in snow cores from Greenland. Here’s Hovind’s own spiel on the subject.

There are plenty of rebuttals online if you care to look as Hovind was saying the same thing for years (almost literally the same; he had a script memorised) but to be as brief as possible, once the snow is packed down under enough layers you might get a maximum of one additional warm-cold layer per year, and not very often. Any other fluctuations are mashed together and lost as the layers flatten. Someone digging a couple of hundred feet will see lots of extra layers, and that’s why the deep cores were taken in the first place: to get the good information down where nature has naturally removed much of the “noise”.

The cores are irrelevant to the accuracy of radiometric dating because they were not used to verify the accuracy of radiometric dating. If you wonder about that, actually look up how it’s been tested. If you simply dismiss all old-earth evidence because you think some of it is incorrect and therefore non-creationist scientists aren’t worth listening to, let me introduce you to the genetic fallacy.

Stalactites and stalagmites can form using different materials and in different circumstances, some of which are fast enough to show results in weeks and some of which are slow enough to take millions of years, and geologists know the difference. Even before you consider these structures, the cave they’re in has to form first, and that can take millions of years too. There’s lots more detail here.

3 thoughts on “Young Earth Creationism is So 6000 Years Ago”

  1. As it should be realized. No one can possible tell the influence of all the circumstances that may or may not have changed even the radiometric measurements taken that you and others say show that the earth is such and such an age. But there are a few other ways of dating the earth that are in direct contradiction to what Atheists are pointing to using the isotopes. And these all should be taught together allowing for the possible errors.

    1. It has been repeatedly explained to you why it is not possible that radioactive decay rates have changed over time, at the immense scales needed for the 6000 year old Earth claim to be possible. You could verify what I’ve written yourself, or even do some research and learn about the chemistry behind it and why variable decay rates would mean the entire universe would be variable, which would not allow anything (including life) to exist.

      Or you can keep making the same tired and debunked claims over and over again that have no basis in fact.

      I’ve put money down on which one it will be.

  2. I’m am so sorry that you refuse to accept the fact that you and all the other Atheists are wrong. There is just too much evidence that support what the Bible says what happened and that it happened because God did it. And this is one of the reasons that Evolutionists tried to make up evidence to prove what they wanted and also hide or twist facts so that there theories look true.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *