[0:00]Okay, so let me ask you, how, how old is the Earth? Okay, so let's apply that principle, the historical record actually tells us. It tells us that God created everything in six days. Adam was created on the sixth day of creation. It tells us that uh Adam was 130 years old when his son Seth was born and Seth was 105 when his son Enos was born and they're all the way down to Noah. And it says in the 600th year of Noah's life, the flood took place. You can just add those numbers up. They're all there in Genesis chapter 5. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to do it. It's straightforward. In fact, I get my grandchildren to do it as an exercise when they get to their 10th birthday. I'll sit down and we build a timeline of Bible history. And you'll discover that the flood occurred 1,656 years after the creation. And then you can follow on and discover that Abraham was born about 2,000 years after the creation. From Abraham to Jesus is about 2,000 years. We know that scripturally and also from history. And from the time of Jesus to the present day is about 2,000 years. So if you add those up, according to the Bible, and this is not my idea, here we are about 6,000 years after the creation. Now that's a bombshell. I mean, 6,000 years, are you kidding me? Yeah, most people would say that. Yes. And, and, look, I got to be honest, when I realized that, it, it really did take my breath away. And I had to say, wow, Lord, there's got to be some evidence of that, but you know there is. There's enormous amounts of evidence for a recent creation. Yes. And just that people don't know about it, but that's the sort of thing which is on our website. It feels like a big claim and it feels like, well, big claim it needs some big support. Absolutely. So what, what would, could you give us some of those, I mean, obviously people can go to the website and they can find out those creation.com/age, was it? Or one of the one. Yeah, yeah. creation.com/age. Age. And you can go and see a whole list there. 101 evidences. Could you just give us a few of them to to start us off? Absolutely. Before we continue, a quick heads up. Stick around until the end of the interview because we'll be offering an exclusive free ebook, the Creation Answers book, packed with biblical answers to over 60 important questions about creation, evolution, and the Bible. You won't want to miss it. Now, back to the interview. There are various classes of evidence. Um, there are those which show uh a discordant results with the evolutionary time scales. Um, and there then there are those which point closer to just a matter of a few thousand years for Earth history. Um, now in the former category, I would think, well, let let's take some radiometric dating things first. And maybe it might be worth just spending a little bit of time on that because radiometric dates get so much um weight put on them in our culture. So what you can do is test how good the dating methods are. Now, in order to do that, you need to have a rock of known age. So that takes the assumptions away, like earlier we were saying. Absolutely. So in there you got your historical record, you see, you know when this rock was formed. How do you get a rock of known age? Well, a really good way is to take a rock from the lava dome of a volcano with a known eruption date. It's just been solidified, so you know, you someone saw it, so it's historical record. That's right. So there's an historical record with a date, so we now know exactly how old the rock is. So people have taken rocks from the lava dome, for instance, of Mount St Helens. It erupted in 1980. And uh rock from the lava dome was dated various samples using the potassium argon dating method. And people got anywhere from 350,000 years to 2.8 million years old. Wow, and it was only 1980. Well, yes, and the rocks at the time were about 10 years old. Oh, right, so it's interesting. Okay. So and and uh you read in the literature people say things like, well, dating rocks that are young is notoriously difficult. So, now, just hang on a minute. Let's just think through that. I've just given you a rock to date, and you're telling me that a young rock is very hard to date, but I don't know if it's young or old. I just know I've got a rock. I want you to tell me, is it young or old? So it's an interesting admission to make, isn't it? Yeah. That the dating laboratories themselves say, oh, well, it's pretty hard to date young rocks. But the point is you shouldn't get such an extraordinary range of very old ages for something which is known to be much younger. Yeah, got you. So I guess they're kind of saying, hey, look, the amount of daughter element is going to be very low because it's so young. But what you're saying is, well, hang on. Surely, shouldn't you get the lower end of your range?
[5:03]Well, yes. And it should be within your your error bars of of uh performing the measurement. Yeah. And they give error bars with these things as well. And so Any competent dating laboratory will do exactly that. Yeah, wow. Wow. So there are a number of others, um there's a couple of volcanoes in Hawaii, Kilauea and Halaalai. Each of which erupted approximately 200 years ago. Uh various ranges of ages anywhere from up to 22 million years, or uh one was dated between 160 million and 3.3 billion years old, and about 200 years old. So people have done this a lot. It sounds like they must be creationists that are going to these sites. And they take the rock samples and they send them away to the laboratories. Yeah, but it's not but it's not only creationists. I mean, the geologists wants to know the ages. Yes, yes. Um and they they come across a lava flow somewhere and they so they send it off to be dated, uh usually potassium argon for for lava flows. Uh, they want to have confidence that these results are good. But if you get unreliable results for things that have a known age, Yeah. How can you have confidence in the results you get for things of unknown age? Yeah. So there's a fundamental dilemma there. But there's something else you can do, you can test different dating methods on things which must be about the same age. So, let me give you an example. In Queensland there's a mine where about 20 something meters down, uh a drilling discovered uh a basalt layer from a lava flow. And uh it had it had passed through a forest and there was charred wood still there. So the basalt was dated using potassium argon at 45 million years. The wood was carbon dated at something like 45,000 years. A factor of a thousand different, but they must be at the same age. Hmm. Because the lava has flowed through the forest. Wow. So you would think different dating methods should give about the same results. Now, people will say, you know, just hang on. Carbon dating can't go back millions and millions of years. But it gave a date well within the range of its capability and precision. So it should have at least maxed out if nothing else. Hmm. But there was carbon 14 present showing that it could not be millions of years old. So you're saying they came back with a carbon date and the error bars saying that, okay, it's within this. So it's within its calibrated, it's within its level of of And and so therefore that shows that these these methods are not very reliable. That's what it's showing. Well, it it says that um and and to be and to be fair, no serious scientist relies solely on a radiometric date. For these very reasons, the uncertainty of the assumptions behind them. So a geologist, for instance, would always do what they call a field survey. They will look at the layers of rock above and below their the relevant sample and if for instance, it's above a layer which is generally accepted to be uh 200 million years old and one of the results comes back more than 200 million. Well, they'd reject that because it's above that layer. So it can't be that old, it must be younger. So there's other data which is brought to bear in interpreting the results. So when the published results come out if a date is um within what they expect, they'll publish it. If it's not too far out, it might appear as a footnote, but if it's completely whacked, they just drop it. Now, I'm not trying to be critical of scientists because I am one, but what it reveals is how our belief systems work because we filter all the evidence we get in accordance with what we already believe. If you've enjoyed watching this, you're going to want to check out the Creation Answers book, packed with biblical answers to over 60 important questions about creation, evolution, and the Bible. And if you want to get a copy of the free ebook, follow the link in the description.
