Why It Matters! The Three Assumptions in Evolutionary Age Testing or Why None of the Dates used by Evolutionists can be Trusted.
The dividing of belief between Creationists and evolutionists is the age of the Earth. James Hutton and Charles Lyell first made the idea of an old Earth popular in the 19th century. The claim that the Earth was millions of years old was instrumental in prompting Charles Darwin to promote the idea of biological evolution. From the mid-19th century to the mid-20th century the "official" age of the Earth doubled every 20 years until it reached its current "age" of 4.6 billion years.
All of the so-called scientific methods for determining the age of anything depend upon three assumptions being absolutely true. The first assumption is that the amount of the original material and the material it turns into is precisely known. For example in carbon 14 dating, the carbon 14 over time turns into nitrogen 12. Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5700 years, that means that it takes 5700 years for half of the carbon 14 to turn into nitrogen 12. Evolutionists maintain that if an object is found that has 50% carbon 14 and 50% nitrogen 12 then it must be 5700 years old.
The problem with these kinds of claims is not with what evolutionists know, but with what they don't know. Evolutionists assume that the amount of carbon 14 in the world has always been the same, but they know that this isn't true. Carbon 14 has been monitored for over 50 years and the amount of carbon 14 has been steadily increasing. So how much was there 1000 years ago or 2000 years ago? No one really knows the answer to that question. Second evolutionists assume that the rate of radioactive decay of carbon 14 has been constant forever, but they don't that either. Conditions in the past may have made carbon 14 decay faster or slower than it does today, nobody really knows. Third evolutionists assume that there has never been any contamination of the object that they are testing, but they don't know that either. The items that evolutionists are testing are generally very old, how can anyone know what has happened to them in all of those years?
I have been specifically discussing the dating methods for carbon 14, but the assumptions are the same for any of the so-called scientific age dating methods. One of the best-known examples of how absurd evolutionary dating methods are is found in the evolutionary Journal of Geophysical Research Vol. 71, No.14. The Journal has a five-page paper on the lava from a volcano in Hawaii. The lava erupted in 1801, but radioactive decay doesn't even begin until the lava has cooled off. The paper reports how evolutionary radioactive dating techniques produced ages of 700 million years and 2.6 billion years from lava that was known to be less than 200 years old.
Such are the dating methods that are touted to be "absolute" and "scientific" by evolutionists. I have great respect for what science can really do, but what it cannot do is to determine the age of anything. Even if in a few cases one or two of these three assumptions can be proven to be true, there is no case in which all three assumptions are known to be true. Without that certainty all of the dates evolutionists promote as "scientific" are just guesses based on speculation. The only way to know the true age of anything is from eyewitness testimony and we have that eyewitness testimony regarding the age of the Earth from an eyewitness, God, as recorded in Genesis.