Hey everybody, it's Pastor Shelley from the Baptist Bias.
And I wanted to make a quick video
to talk about the geologic column specifically,
and something that was brought up in a recent podcast
where we had Dr. Ken Hoeven
and we had Pastor Steven Anderson
on discussing young earth creation elements
that we were talking about the age of the universe
and the age of the earth.
But specifically, I wanted to talk about
one of the things that was brought up
regarding radiometric dating and the geologic column.
Now, radiometric dating has a few different methods
as far as calculations that are used in giving dates
or ages to particular rocks.
Igneous rocks are what are typically used
for potassium argon radiometric dating techniques,
and they are measuring the half-life
of these particular elements.
You can read a lot about it.
I'm not an expert on that particular subject,
but at the same time, that doesn't mean
that I can't understand the general logic
that's being used and applied,
and really study the Bible and see if that matches.
One of the things about the geologic column
is most people will admit readily
that there's no such thing as a geologic column in the world.
It's rather a chart that's in a geology textbook
to try and label the geologic features
that we see found in different parts of the world.
So there is no real place in the world
that you can see this entire quote geologic column,
but rather there's several rock layers found
all over the earth that have been labeled and classified
according to the standard of the geologic column.
Now, when you look at the geologic column,
it has several different eras
where they essentially give a particular section
a date of time.
And the question is,
how do they come to these particular dates?
Where are they getting these numbers from?
Because sedimentary rock cannot be dated
with radiometric dating techniques.
However, in the midst of sedimentary layers
where we find fossils,
they also found igneous rock layers or samples,
and they use those particular either samples or sections
sandwiched in with all of the other sedimentary layers
and fossils that they find.
And they come to a conclusion of some estimated date
based on the radiometric dating techniques.
Once they've established a general basis
or timeline for particular sections,
they then now assign this particular rock layer
with an estimate of a date range.
Specifically, we could look at one period
that a lot of people have heard about
is the Jurassic period.
You've probably seen movies like Jurassic Park.
And the Jurassic period is classified
based on the fossils that it finds.
It finds a lot of fossils that we know as dinosaur bones
or the T-Rex or the different dinosaurs
that may have existed in times past.
And this specific era is dated
through radiometric dating techniques.
And then anywhere they find fossils in the world
that correspond to this particular classification,
they then assign that particular date range
to that particular rock layer.
And so that's where you kind of hear this idea of,
well, we date the fossils by the rock layer
and we date the rock layer by the fossils.
And it kind of sounds like circular reasoning.
It really is, but at the end of the day,
the reason why they're coming to the numbers that they are
is based on radiometric samples
being taken out of those particular sections.
And they're using radiometric dating techniques
to get an estimate for that particular section
and what they call that particular era,
such as the Jurassic era.
Well, when you study and you look through
all of these particular classifications,
you look at all these different eras,
you'll notice that it really has every life form
and every type of creature
that we pretty much are familiar with today.
I would grant that some dinosaur fossils
and a few other plants or animals
are rare or not found anymore.
And so we do have a few exceptions,
but generally speaking, the fish and the birds
and the different mammals that we see in the world today
pretty much correspond to the specific layers that we have.
And I wanna read a particular portion of scripture on this.
The Bible says, for this they willingly are ignorant of
that by the word of God, the heavens were of old
and the earth standing out of the water and in the water,
whereby the world that then was
being overflowed with water perished.
So the Bible says that there's gonna be scoffers
on the last day and they're gonna be willingly ignorant
of a few things.
Number one, that the word of God created the heavens,
that it created the earth.
And another thing specifically in verse six of 2 Peter
is it says that the world that then was
being overflowed with water perished.
So it's also talking about the whole world,
the whole world where we would see what man,
beasts, mammals, animals, just all kinds
of different things.
And the Bible says that they're willingly ignorant.
That's important to me because what that is trying
to suggest based on the text is that the evidence
of the global worldwide flood should be very obvious.
It should be very manifest.
And I would say that what we see in rock layers today
is the very obvious evidence of a global worldwide flood.
The process of fossilization is a special process
where something is rapidly buried in a catastrophic event.
So in order to have a giant section of our rock layers
filled with virtually every single animal plant
that we know today all buried within this sedimentary rock
shows very clearly that a major catastrophic event happened
and that that catastrophic event essentially encapsulated
almost every living thing that we would know today.
Well, that fits exactly with what the Bible teaches.
And if we are gonna say we believe the Bible,
if we're gonna say that the Bible's true
and we put our faith in scripture,
then we would have to admit readily
that all of those different rock layers that we see today
with all the various animals and life forms and fossils,
they were all laid down in the same time period
within about a one-year period as a maximum.
Through Noah's flood is probably even a shorter time window,
but essentially all of those layers would have been formed
within a one-year time span and approximately 4,600 years ago
based on the chronology of the Bible
and when you look about
when Noah would have been on this earth.
So if we can look at all those various layers
with all the different fossils that they have
and us not being willingly ignorant of the flood,
then we would have to assume that all of those rock layers
would be dated within about a one-year window,
that the top layer and the bottom layer, the middle layer,
they would all yield dates through any dating technique
that would be about the same timeframe
and that it would be about 4,600 years ago.
So whenever scientists today use radiometric dating
and they come to the top layer being 100,000 years old
or 10,000 years old, and then they keep going down
and down and they say, now it's 100,000,
now it's a million, now it's 100 million,
and then they even get to billions,
and we see that there are all these varying degrees
of numbers, well, I'm gonna readily reject those numbers.
I'm gonna say, you know what, there must be flaws
in these dating techniques, because if I'm gonna believe
the Bible, and I'm gonna agree that the whole world perished
in a global worldwide flood, and that's exactly what we see
in those particular layers, then I would have to know
that their dating techniques are flawed and wrong.
If I'm going to then reject the radiometric dating
techniques for all of these top layers that we see
in the geologic column, all the way down to the Cambrian,
which is kind of the known as the era in which life
supposedly began through the evolutionary process.
But we know that that's not true at all.
Even if you go beyond those layers and we go down
to the further layers where they're still dating samples
of igneous rock, the radiometric dating techniques,
I'm going to reject those numbers as well.
I'm not going to accept numbers below that particular
threshold and reject the numbers that are above them.
I believe that if you're going to be consistent,
you would have to say that it's all generally true
or it's all generally false.
But I don't see how anyone could accept the bottom numbers.
They could say, well, I think that when they came
to 3.8 billion or 4 billion years old,
dating certain rocks at the lowest layers
and saying that this is where we derive the age
of the earth, that that would be consistent
if you're going to reject the radiometric dating techniques
employed to calculate all the other layers,
the Jurassic layer or other layers where we find fossils
that were clearly laid down in the global flood.
Because I believe the Bible,
because I believe that's overwhelming evidence
of the global flood,
I'm gonna reject the radiometric dating technique
for those particular layers,
and then I'm gonna reject it for the bottom layer as well.
So when scientists will say that the earth
is 4.5 billion years,
number one, they're assuming that the rock life cycle
hasn't interrupted that particular process too much.
And another assumption they're taking
is they're taking rocks from the moon
or other cosmic rocks,
and they're dating them
through radiometric dating techniques,
and they're arriving at about the same number
that they would estimate for the earth,
so they're assuming that's the creation point,
or that's the timeline.
But all that tells me,
if you take a rock from the moon and you dated it,
and you take a rock from an asteroid
or some cosmic rock and you date it,
and you get the same number from that,
from the moon and from the earth,
the only thing that tells me
is that they were all created at the same time.
It does not tell me the exact age whatsoever.
And because they're consistently wrong
on dating the ages of these particular layers,
I believe they're wrong
on the 4.5 billion year estimate as well.
Now, this is not a very popular opinion
because if you take billions of years away,
if you take that off the table for modern scientists today,
well then their evolutionary theory is really just
junk science, you know?
And of course it is junk science to say that
bacteria turned into fish and the fish grew legs
and they turned into mammals
and then the mammals turned into humans.
Any reasonable person would reject that and say,
this is pseudoscience.
There's nothing scientific about it.
We don't see that whatsoever.
All of these rock layers that you claim
are hundreds and thousands of years old.
We still have life forms and animals on the planet today
that correspond to those particular fossils.
So why did they not evolve over the hundreds
of thousands of years or the millions of years?
But additionally, as a bio-believing Christian,
I don't even wanna acquiesce to 4.5 billion years
when the method by which they arrive at that
can be shown to be faulty and many known rock samples.
I believe that there's some younger creationists
who have sent in samples from Mount St. Helens
where they essentially gave them a rock sample,
said, "Hey, will you date this particular rock sample?"
And it would have estimated only
hundreds of years at maximum.
And when they came back with the dating,
it's 300,000 years or millions of years even,
showing that when you have a rock,
where you know the age of it,
radiometric dating techniques don't work.
Whenever you have a rock that no one knows,
well then magically it always works, right?
Well, that's again, flawed logic.
I believe that a lot of scientists came out and said,
"Well, he lied when he turned in the sample.
"He didn't tell them that he knew the age
"and that it was from this particular area
"in Mount St. Helens."
Yeah, of course, because if he told them
that this rock sample is something that we know
is 70 years old from Mount St. Helens,
they're gonna say, "Well, it's 70 years old.
"They're not gonna come up with these big numbers."
Of course, the reason why they know it didn't work
is because it didn't work and they have a known age.
Whenever we have no known age of particular rock samples,
then we're supposed to believe that it always works
and that their number is always true.
Well, unfortunately, because the Bible is clear,
there's a lot of people that are willingly ignorant.
I'm not going to accept that.
And so I believe it's important for us
as Bible-leaving Christians to push back
on things that are not truly scientific.
If there is a scientific method
by which known samples can be dated accurately
and that they're very consistent with everything
that we would assume based on known ages,
then I might give more credence to extrapolating that data.
But whenever they are failing at giving samples
that have known ages the correct timeline,
why would I then ever subscribe to them extrapolating data
from that particular model?
It seems very clear that there's a lot of error and flaws
in some of these dating techniques.
There's a lot of assumptions brought in.
And again, I'm not against the science
of radiometric dating because I'm sure the logic is true
that if we could assume how much potassium argon
and these different elements were in the rock
and at its initial state when it formed,
and we could assume the decay rate
has always stayed the same.
And we can assume that there's no contamination
within that particular rock sample,
then there's nothing wrong
with their mathematical calculation.
Problem is there's all these assumptions put in
that nobody really knows.
And when we test it against things that are known,
it seems to fail often.
And I believe that many scientists today,
they don't want to readily admit that these flaws
are strong enough evidence to throw everything out
because then they would have to say,
well, maybe we're wrong on the evolutionary theory as well.
Maybe the Bible actually is true.
But because people are willingly ignorant,
I don't think that modern science
will probably ever reconcile on this particular issue.
So I just wanted to make a video
just to kind of address that.
Throughout this video, I put a lot of different things
on the screen so you can kind of see.
I'll put some links in the video description as well
so you can check them out.
But I hope that you make sure that
whenever you study these subjects or you think about them,
that we apply the same kind of scrutiny
that we do to every subject.
We want to make sure that just because it sounds good,
it's still accurate and scientific.
And we want to also make sure it matches with the Bible.
Well, I hope this video is a blessing to you.
God bless, have a great day.