What Should You Consider Before Buying A Bunk Bed For Your Family?

Every child who has learned to do simple algebra knows that we cannot come up with the answers to the questions 1, 2 and 3 with the amount of information that has been given. It is impossible to tell how long it has been burning, how long the candle was, or what the burn rate has been in the past before we got a chance to measure it. Of course, question 4 is abstract and illogical. Maybe the candle was 10.1 inches long and has been burning for six minutes, or maybe it was 60 inches long and has been burning for several days. It is easy to see the gross misinterpretation that has accompanied these troubled and arbitrary theories.

How Wide Is The Gap?

Nevertheless the question arises: how much can these theories be off? Even if they are off by a factor of 100 times, we would still have an earth that is a million years old or so. To answer this, we quote from Morris-Whitcomb and The Genesis Flood, pages 344 and 345: “We reply, however, that the Biblical outline of the history of the earth with the geologic framework provided thereby, would lead us to postulate exactly this state of radioactivity evidence. We have already shown that the Bible quite plainly and irrefutably teaches the fact of a grown creation, one with the appearance of age of some sort analogous to the appearance of age of a mature Adam at the first instance of his existence. These processes include the phenomena of radioactivity. It is perhaps possible that only the parent elements were originally created, but it is eminently more harmonious with the whole concept of a complete creation to say that all of the elements of the chain were created simultaneously.”

Adam, when he was one second old, looked like he was 26, or however old he looked. Trees when they were made, put in the earth, and commanded to grow, looked like they were many years old; and a brand new rock looked like it had been there for thousands of years. The elements in the rock, such as lead, immediately contained parent and daughter elements and isotopes or uranium and thorium.

Let us go back to the example of the candle in the room. Without knowing it, we have walked out onto a stage. A drama is about to unfold. The scenery director has set a candle on a mantle made of distressed wood to make it look old, in a holder that is tarnished so it will look as though it has been there for a while. He has placed an accumulation of wax at its base so it will appear to have been burning for some time. All of this has been done to set the proper mood, atmosphere, and environment for the drama that is to take place. The actors cannot come onto the stage until the scene is set. Thus, Genesis says that God created man and placed him in the Garden that God had made for him. God told Adam to begin at that point in time and history, to go forward, and to set in motion the drama of life.


Astronomic methods are more bizarre still and farther afield. Says T. S. Jacobsen in an article titled “Review of space time creation,” Science Monthly, Volume 128, September 5, 1958, page 527: “The current estimates of the expanding universe, whether on the old or new time scale are very far from being in any sense factual. While it is true that the Hubbell constant enters into the computation of age, McVilly has stressed that a factor depending upon the model, a pure guess, that the present radius of curvature is about 100 times the original Einsteinian radius, has the result that we know nothing for sure about the age of the universe.” This is the same Hubbell in whose honor the giant telescope that was just put into space was named. As a result we have heard about supposed discoveries and facts on the evening news, based on formulas that are pure guesswork, according to these very people–guessing that Einstein was wrong by a factor of 100 times and using density of matter for calculations that will result in very off-the cuff information being given out that may be, in the minds of many scientists, one thousand times wrong.

In space measurement there is also a new theory out that is being enthusiastically supported and promoted by many astrophysicists who also question the buy discord accounts model of the universe. These people view the universe with much more realism than Einstein did. They see it as three dimensional (where Einstein saw it as two dimensional) just like the real world. They strongly question the constant velocity of light in space and time–the theory that light never changes its speed for any reason. They believe that light moves in a velocity that is consistent and constant with its source rather than with respect to its observer, as Einstein did. In other words, Einstein believed that light movement could and should be observed and measured. These observances and measurements were made by man on the earth as he moved from one place to another and the appearance of movement by the stars.

Astrophysicists believe that such an approach to the velocity of light is meaningless in terms of deep space. They believe in what is known as Reimanian space and the Reimanian theory. This has as its base the mathematical theories that have to do with Georg Frederick Reiman, a Swiss-German scientist from about the middle of the 19th century. These people have an entirely different theory as to how light moves in space. Without trying to explain this theory any further, their studies show–pay attention to this–that light from the farthest star could reach the earth in 15 years. This in contrast to Einstein’s several billion years. Hubbell believed that Einstein was off by a factor of 100. This means that the measurements that they are going to make with the Hubbell telescope will be based on much greater times still.

Wild, Undisciplined, Unenlightened Guesswork

So we go from hundreds of billions of years for light to reach the earth from the farthest star in the Hubbell theory to 15 years for light to reach the earth by the Reimanian theory. Yet the Reimanian theory has much more acceptance in the scientific community than Einstein’s theories did when they first appeared and nearly as much credibility as Hubbell’s does now (which radically challenges Einstein). In the light of these disparities between equally qualified scientists in the field of astronomy and astrophysics, can anyone possibly think that the wanton guesswork and speculation that you will be hearing with respect to the findings of the Hubbell telescope can have any useful, practical, or trustworthy meaning? Remember the 15 years of the Reimanian theory when you hear scientists droning on about the “billions and billions of light years.”

Carbon Dating Methods

Then there is the radio carbons method of dating which is supposed to supply accurate dating in the last 32,000 to 40,000 years. Carbon-14 is the radioactive isotope of ordinary carbon which is used in this method. There are three assumptions which must always function as constants, and also they must function as anticipated for this method to mean anything.

  1. The carbon dioxide cycle is always constant. This has to do with the means and the quantity by which carbon dioxide is present in the atmosphere.
  2. The cosmic ray flux has been constant on the hundred year scale. This means the radiation from cosmic rays can fluctuate within a 100 year period, but that over that 100 years it must add up to exactly the same as the last 100 years and the next 100 years.
  3. The decay rate of carbon 14 has to be constant. There can be no change in it at all. This would mean that the contents of the ocean and the atmosphere have been absolutely constant for 30,000 or 40,000 years.

All of these assumptions are questioned, they are doubtful, and they are in dispute. Even so, those who believe in the so-called carbon-dating system claim that it has been proven beyond doubt that all of these things are true. In light of such an outlandish claim, it is interesting that W.F. Ruby, in an article entitled “Radio Carbon Dating,” in the American Scientist, Volume 44, January 1956, page 107 says:

“The first shock, Dr. Allen and I had, was that our advisors informed us that history extended back only 5,000 years. Well, we had thought initially that we would be able to get samples all along the curve back to 30,000 years, put the points in and then our work would be done. You read books and you find statements that such and such society or archeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages are not known. In fact, it is about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last historical date of any real certainty has been established.”

And to this, Morris-Whitcomb comment on page 372 of The Genesis flood:

“It is obvious, therefore, that any genuine correlation of the radio carbon method with definite historical chronologies is limited only to sometime after the Flood and the dispersion. The major assumptions in the method are evidently valid in this period, but this does not prove their validity for more ancient times, the periods in which we would infer that the assumptions are very likely wrong and therefore the datings are also wrong.”

Commenting on radio carbon dating Dr. Charles B. Hunt, in an article entitled “Radio Carbon Dating in the Light of Stratigraphy in the Weathering Process”, Scientific Monthly, Volume 81, November, 1955, page 240, says:

“In order that a technique or a discipline may be useful in scientific work, its limits must be known and understood. But the limits of usefulness of the radio carbon age determinations are not yet known or understood. No one seriously proposes that all determinations of dates are without error, but we do not know how much many of them are in error: 25%? 50%? 75%? And we do not know what dates are in error, and by what amounts or why.”

A Down-Hill Slide

In the years since Dr. Hunt wrote this article, things have gone from bad to worse for the radio carbon dating method. It has been abandoned altogether by the vast majority of those seeking to establish accurate dating methods. The conclusion that we come to is that the only accurate dating system in all of those known to be used in historic science is carbon-14 after the Flood or back to about 4,000 years to the days of the pharaohs. The only reason that this process is accurate is that it can be correlated with recorded history which it gives scientists a bench mark to check against. This is classically true of all historic scientific endeavors. They can never be anything more than religious faith when they go back beyond recorded history. Therefore, there is no proof, and there never has been anywhere at any time and there never will be, that can show the earth to be older than 4,300 years. Actually, it is about 6,000 years old by orthodox chronology. But historical records of the first 1700 years are non-existent due to the destruction of the Genesis Flood. Recorded history begins fairly soon after the flood. This is just what we would expect to be the case if the Genesis Flood was real, as the Bible says that it was.

A Colossal Religious Failure

For all their fervor, false claims, threatening, chiding, pleadings, and religious zeal, historical dating methods–radio carbons or radioactivity or space measurements or what have you–do not support the religion of evolution and do not discredit the Biblical account of the Genesis Flood.