Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. In John 14:6, Jesus said, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” The goal of Anchored by Truth is to encourage everyone to grow in the Christian faith by anchoring themselves to the secure truth found in the inspired, inerrant, and infallible word of God.

They will say, “Where is this ‘coming’ he promised? Ever since our ancestors died, everything goes on as it has since the beginning of creation.”

2 Peter, chapter 3, verse 4, New International Version

********

VK: Hello! I’m Victoria K. Welcome to Anchored by Truth brought to you by Crystal Sea Books. We’re very glad to be with you today as we continue the series we started a few weeks ago on Anchored by Truth. We are calling this series “10 Facts Every Christian Needs to Know.” In the studio today we have RD Fierro. RD is an author and the founder of Crystal Sea Books. He is the one picking the facts we are covering in this series. RD, we’ve covered 4 of the 10 facts so far in this series. How about if we do a quick refresher on those four facts?

RD: Well, I would also like to say hello to all the listeners joining us here today. We’re very grateful for those who have an interest in deepening their faith by thinking carefully about the Bible and the truth that it contains. The first fact that we discussed was that every Christian needs to know is that science confirms that the universe and earth are thousands of years old, not millions or billions of years old. The second fact we covered was that the complexity of life makes it impossible for life to have arisen as a result of the random collision of atoms and molecules – even if you could explain the existence of the atoms and molecules to begin with. Fact number 3 is that there is solid scientific evidence that the tallest mountains on earth were underwater at one time. And the 4th fact every Christian needs to know is that the fossil record does not support evolution.

VK: So, briefly put the first fact helps dispel the assertion that “Deep Time” is supported scientifically. Said slightly differently, the conventional idea that the universe and earth are billions of years old does not possess the scientific support that is commonly supposed. The 2nd fact dispels the idea that living creatures could have risen by chance through the random, chaotic interaction of inanimate matter. The 3rd fact points out that the earth as we see it today reflects at least one previous catastrophic flood sometime in its history. And the 4th fact reveals that there is no direct scientific evidence that evolution as conceived by Charles Darwin ever occurred.

RD: Yes. Just to amplify what we are talking about with that 4th fact, Dr. Pierre P. Grasse’ who was one of the world’s greatest living biologists, in his book Evolution of Living Organisms said that “the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide … the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms.” In other words Dr. Grasse’ plainly said there is no scientific evidentiary mechanism that can make up for the lack of transitional forms in the fossil record. And, David Kitts, a professor of geology at the University of Oklahoma said, “Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”

VK: These facts taken together really point out that so much of what is normally taken for granted in our culture – primary narratives as you call them - really rests on an untenable foundation. You like to distinguish between primary and secondary narratives because you think that that understanding that distinction is very important to Christians being able be salt and light to the culture. What do you mean by primary and secondary narratives?

RD: Primary narratives are overarching paradigms so embedded in the culture that they are not even noticed any more. They are like the framed art prints on your wall. Initially you see them and think about them, but as time goes by you notice them less and less. Eventually you only notice them when a visitor comes in and makes a comment about them. Deep time, evolution, and uniformitarianism - among others - are now primary narratives in our culture. Only fools and the suspect disagree with them. The narratives we notice, such as the prominent social and political narratives, are secondary ones - the acceptability of abortion or same sex marriage, the difference between "green" energy and fossil fuels, increased government control and regulation over our daily lives, etc. The secondary ones emerge from and are dependent on the primary ones.

VK: Why is that?

RD: Because most people need to believe that there is at least a modicum of consistency in their worldview – their value set. Before the appearance of these primary narratives it was far more difficult for people to simply side step God and His authority. But Deep Time and the Big Bang did away with the need to see God as the Creator of the physical universe. Widespread belief in evolution did away with the need to have God as the Author of Life. Uniformitarianism replaced catastrophism as the dominant view for how the topographic features of the earth was produced. Catastrophism was the belief that the physical features of our planet were largely shaped by one or more catastrophes such as the Genesis global flood. This did away with the previously widespread narrative that God had not only created everything but that he was also the Administrator of Justice. Genesis makes it pretty clear that the global flood was caused because of sin.

VK: Genesis, chapter 6, verses 5 through 7 say, “The Lord saw how great the wickedness of the human race had become on the earth, and that every inclination of the thoughts of the human heart was only evil all the time. The Lord regretted that he had made human beings on the earth, and his heart was deeply troubled. So the Lord said, “I will wipe from the face of the earth the human race I have created—and with them the animals, the birds and the creatures that move along the ground—for I regret that I have made them.”

RD: Right. So, notice that the predominant result of these primary narratives – Deep Time, evolution, uniformitarianism - was to get rid of a perceived need for God. Before the General Theory of Evolution came around even atheists admitted that they had no adequate way to explain the existence of the created order and life.

VK: Probably the most prominent atheist of the last 3 or 4 decades is Richard Dawkins. Even Dawkins has written that “Although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” In other words Darwin gave a level of respectability to an idea that previously was widely and easily dismissed – the idea that living creatures did not need a Creator to explain their existence. Before Darwin it’s not that evolutionary-type theories didn’t exist, but they had no hold or approval in popular culture.

RD: Yes. So, once our modern culture got rid of the common-sensical notion that God exists the post-modernists were free to redefine a value set free of God. This included the definition of family, the suitability of various sexual practices, man’s dominion over nature, the distinction among religious truth claims, etc. We replaced a value system characterized by the 10 commandments with a value system characterized by humanist principles.

VK: So in this “10 Facts” series we are challenging the truth of those primary narratives, aren’t we? I think this is part of what Jesus meant when he said, “you will know the truth and the truth will set you free.” That’s John, chapter 8, verse 32. So, what truth do we want to focus on today? What is fact 5 of the 10 facts every Christian needs to know?

RD: Fact 5 is that the conventional dates assigned to the age of the earth and universe do not possess the scientific support normally presumed.

VK: What you’re saying is that when we hear on various tv shows and internet videos that the universe is 14.5 Billion years old and the earth is 4.5 Billion years old – there is really very little, if any, scientific support for assigning those dates. I think you better elaborate on what you’re thinking.

RD: In our first fact of this series we began our disabuse of the notion of Deep Time by citing 3 lines of evidence that show that the earth and universe are thousands of years old – not Billions. In our second episode we added a fourth line of evidence.

VK: And those episodes are available on our website, crystalseabooks.com, or their favorite podcasting app for anyone who wants to review them.

RD: Today, rather than focusing on evidence that the earth is “young” I want to focus on the problems associated with the way conventional science has assigned those long dates. To begin with we need to recognize that there is no way for scientists, or anyone, to “measure” the age of the earth and universe – even though that idea circulates widely in our culture. No scientist has measured the age of the earth. They can’t because it is impossible to measure age. The age of events that extend beyond our recording ability are always calculated – they are not measured.

VK: What do you mean that the ages are “calculated?”

RD: There are 3 and only 3 ways of determining the age of anything. If we have the right records we can simply go to the records and determining how much time has passed between the start of the event and the end of the event.

VK: And that’s how we usually determine our own age. We know our birthdate and the current year and we simply subtract one date from the other. For some of you that’s getting harder day by day.

RD: Right. At my age counting on fingers and toes doesn’t cut it any more. Going to the records works provided we have reliable records. Another way of determining age is to compare something of an unknown age with something of a known age and determining how they compare.

VK: An example of this approach might be if a doctor was trying to determine the age of a child and didn’t have the child’s records or history. The doctor can tell how tall the child is, how much they weigh, the kind of teeth the child possesses, etc. Doctors have good ideas of how fast children normally develop and so can probably make a reasonably accurate determination of a child’s age based on their stage of development. But this kind of an approach assumes that the child is about average and didn’t have any conditions that affected their growth and development. These assumptions might be wrong and would produce an incorrect age. The comparative approach is often used and works well in archeology. Archeologists can compare a new find from a new site and see whether there are any existing artifacts that resemble the new find. If we know that a particular piece of pottery came from the 1st century AD in Israel and we find an unknown piece of pottery we can compare the two and see if the new piece looks similar to previously identified artifact. But again, this assumes that the first artifact was dated correctly.

RD: Right. And the third way of determining age is by measuring the rate of some process, and the amount of product that process produces, and working out how long it would take to produce that amount of product at that rate of production. Said differently, the age is calculated by determining or knowing the rate of change associated with a process and then using that rate and changes in the state of an object or creature based on that rate to infer the passage of time. This process can be very accurate. For instance, forensic scientists may use this kind of an approach in helping decide when someone died. The forensic scientists may know that the presence of certain stages of insects around a dead body can reveal how long it has been since death occurred. This approach can also be accurate where we know with certainty the starting nature of the object or element we are dating and that there have not been material changes either in the rate of change or the introduction of external contaminants. Unfortunately, using processes and rates of change, especially radioactive decay, is the most common way scientists try to approach dating the age of rocks and the earth.

VK: And that is, of course, where uncertainty enters the picture. For example radioactive uranium naturally decays into lead. Scientists can measure how fast this is happening now. They can then measure how much lead is present in a rock, and calculate how long it would take for uranium decay to produce that much lead. But in making this calculation the scientist is making several assumptions. They must assume that all the lead came from uranium, that no uranium or lead entered or left the rock since it was formed, and that the rate of decay of the uranium has remained constant. All these assumptions are unprovable and some are unreasonable. What this example illustrates is that using process and rate change to calculate the age of the earth must, by necessity, involve making lots of unprovable assumptions. And this weakness adheres to radioactive decay determined ages regardless of the scientific sophistication involved in actually taking measurements.

RD: Right. We have no way of knowing what the initial state of the rock was because no one was, or could have been, there to examine the rock at the time it was formed. But what we do know is that there have been some pretty spectacular errors made in dating rocks when we do know when the rock was formed.

VK: You’re thinking about one of your favorite examples of the rocks that were taken from the Mount St. Helens volcano. Like all erupting volcanoes it created a great deal of new rock and the accumulating rock has formed a fairly large dome. The current dome is three-quarters of a mile long and 1,100 feet high. The current dome started growing after the volcano’s last explosive eruption on October 17, 1980. There were 17 so-called dome-building eruptions that stretched from October 18, 1980 to October 26th 1986. A thick pasty lava oozed out of the volcanic vent like toothpaste from a tube and because the kind of lava that was oozing it was too thick to flow very far. It simply piled up around the vent forming the mountain-like dome. There’s a good article about the dating of the rocks from Mount St. Helens on creation.com the website for Creation Ministries International.

RD: Yes. The article points out that one geologist sent samples of the rocks formed during the eruption and from some mineral concentrates that were taken from the rock. When the lab dated the rock and the samples the dates they assigned were around 350,000 years old for the rock and 2.8 Million years old for the mineral concentrates. The dating method used at Mount St Helens was the potassium-argon method, which is widely used in geological circles. It is based on the fact that potassium-40 (an isotope of the element potassium) spontaneously ‘decays’ into argon-40 (an isotope of the element argon). This process proceeds very slowly at a known rate, having a half-life for potassium-40 of 1.3 billion years. In other words, 1.0 gram of potassium-40 would, in 1.3 billion years, theoretically decay to the point that only one-half gram was left.

VK: So, using this method the lab that was assigning the dates assigned dates of a few hundred thousand years old to over two and a half million years old. But we know that all the samples that were being dated had been formed between 1980 and 1986. Right?

RD: Right. And this example illustrates the problems with using radioactive decay processes to assign dates to rocks or geological material. Contrary to what is generally believed, it is not just a matter of measuring the amount of potassium-40 and argon-40 in a volcanic rock sample of unknown age, and calculating a date. To be accurate we need to know the history of the rock. For example, we need to know how much ‘daughter’ element was present in the rock when it formed. In most situations we don’t know. Since we can’t measure the proportions of parent and daughter elements scientists have to make assumptions. They have to guess. It is routinely assumed that there was no argon initially. But even if we knew the starting proportions we would also need to know whether potassium-40 or argon-40 has leaked into, or out of, the rock since it formed. Again, there is no way of knowing, so assumptions have to be made. It is routinely assumed that no leakage occurred. It is only after we have made these assumptions that we can calculate an ‘age’ for the rock. And when this is done, the ‘age’ of most rocks calculated in this way is usually very great, often millions of years.

VK: And this example of errant dating of recently formed rocks is not limited to Mount St. Helens. In his book “The Greatest Hoax on Earth” Dr. Jonathan Sarfati cites a similar example of misdated rocks from a New Zealand volcano. The volcano erupted in 1949, 1954, and 1975 but the dates assigned by potassium-argon dating ranged from 250,000 years old to three and a half million years old.

RD: The point of this discussion is not to cast aspersions on science or scientists but to illustrate the limitations that all observers face when they are trying to make determinations about what happened in the distant past. All any observer can do is to examine the current evidence – the evidence before them – and then apply analysis to determine what the evidence tells them. Now here at Anchored by Truth we are well aware that the vast majority of scientists would disagree with what we are discussing today. But truth is not determined by majority opinion. It is determined by correspondence to reality.

VK: And the reality is that no one alive on earth was present when the earth was formed. But we do have eye witness testimony that comes to us from one source, don’t we? The Bible gives us a report of the creation of the earth and the universe. So, the way Biblical creationists determine the age of the earth is by going to that report – that record – and seeing what it says. But, as we mentioned earlier, for us to rely on a record we must be sure that that record is accurate. But that is what we do on Anchored by Truth. We continuously present evidence that supports the reliability and authenticity of scripture.

RD: Exactly. The fact that we are discussing today - that the conventional dates assigned to the age of the earth and universe do not possess the scientific support normally presumed – is simply that. It’s a fact. Despite the lengthy presentations that are made about the scientific method behind making dating determinations the simple fact is that those defenses tend to talk a lot about methodology while ignoring the underlying assumptions. But the assumptions are inescapable. As we illustrated the person assigning the dates must make those assumptions because without the assumptions they cannot apply their methodology. And those assumptions are unprovable.

VK: Not only are the assumptions behind radiometric dating unprovable but their most basic assumption – uniformitarianism - is called into question by the possibility of a global flood. A flood of the type described in Genesis would have affected every aspect of the earth including its topography and geology. So, if the Genesis flood occurred, and we strongly believe that science supports that it did, then uniformitarianism has to be dismissed as a starting point.

RD: Yes. And that was the point of using our opening scripture from 2 Peter. 2,000 years ago the Apostle Peter foresaw the day when begin to mock the idea that Christ was going to come again by saying, “that’s silly. Everything is just going along the way it always has.” What Peter prophesied we now see around us daily.

VK: So, our 5th fact reinforces our 1st fact. The 1st fact is that there is affirmative evidence such as lunar recession that shows that the age of earth is very unlikely to be in the billions of years. The fact we discussed today make the same point from the opposite side. The so-called science that is used to assign billions of years dates for the earth and universe rests on inescapable and unprovable assumptions. The two facts work together to disperse the legitimacy of the conventional view about the age of the earth.

RD: Exactly. Empirical observations of our earth cast a great deal of doubt on the conventional view. Biblical creationists offer a competing view. So, the question then is which view is better supported by the evidence and whether the observer is going to follow the evidence?

VK: Or whether they are going to adhere to their starting axioms even when those axioms are at odd with the evidence?

RD: Yes. I understand that when listeners first encounter these kind of choices it can be startling, even disturbing. We all read the high school and college texts with the thick covers and full cover graphics that assured us that the earth is billions of years old and that there is overwhelming evidence that demonstrates that. But the reality of it is that as you probe beneath the surface you find out that most of those science textbooks only presented one side of the argument – they were selective about the evidence they included. They had to be. If they had featured or even given time to the alternate explanation they never would have been published. That’s why we’re doing this “10 facts every Christian should know” series. We are drawing people’s attention to the evidence for the alternative and then inviting people to investigate further on their own. Sadly, that is not an invitation that is issued very often in the chemistry or physics classrooms in schools or colleges across this nation.

VK: Well, we won’t dwell too much on the political commentary except to say this. As you pointed out the social narratives that circulate today depend on certain underlying primary narratives. And for over 150 years one of those primary narratives has been that science has proven that our world and universe can exist just fine without God. But our hearts tell us this isn’t true and when we start taking a hard look at the available evidence our brains confirm what our hearts already knew. This sounds like a great time to go to the Lord in prayer. Today let’s listen to a prayer for the people and institutions that oversee our children’s education – the school boards. And let’s remember that God’s word calls on us to pray regularly for our government leaders. We should pray for them to make wise decisions and if they are not we must pray that God would lead them into a recognition that they are ultimately accountable to Him.

---- PRAYER FOR SCHOOL BOARDS

VK: Before we close we’d like to remind our audience that a lot of our radio episodes are linked together in series of topics so if they missed any episodes in this series or if they just want to hear one again, all of these episodes are available on your favorite podcast app. To find them just search on “Anchored by Truth by Crystal Sea Books.”

If you’d like to hear more, try out crystalseabooks.com where “We’re not perfect but our Boss is!”

(Opening Bible Quote from the New International Version)

2 Peter, chapter 3, verse 4, New International Version

Immeasurable Age - creation.com

Radio-dating in Rubble - creation.com

Dinosaur footprint treasure trove found in Britain - creation.com

The Bright Angel Trail trackways - creation.com

Flat gaps - creation.com

Dinosaur and mammal tracks found together - creation.com

Satan’s Strategy

• Cast doubt on God’s goodness

• Deny God’s truth

• Elevate self-importance

• Establish a replacement in the mind and heart for God’s truth

Cultural Narratives

One way to look at narratives is that there are primary and secondary narratives that circulate in our culture. The primary narratives are so embedded in our culture that they are not even noticed any more. They are like the framed prints on your wall. Initially you see them but as time goes by you notice them less and less. Eventually you only know they are there when a visitor comes in and remarks about them.

Deep time, evolution, uniformitarianism, and the equality of all religious viewpoints are now primary narratives in our culture. Only fools and the suspect disagree with them. The narratives we notice (such as the prominent social and political narratives) are secondary ones - the acceptability of abortion, same sex marriage, the difference between "green" energy and fossil fuels, "public" education, increased government control and regulation, etc. The secondary ones emerge from and are dependent on the primary ones.

• The Big Bang/deep time does away with the need for God as Creator.

• Evolution does away with the need for God as the Author of life.

• Uniformitarianism does away God as the Administrator of justice (become evil continually and God will wipe you off the face of the earth).

Since we've done away with God we now create our own standards for what constitutes "personhood," family, man's dominion over the earth, etc.

The problem is, of course, we didn't do away with God or His truth.

And the house built on intellectual sand falls when the river of reality hits it.

So, we will proclaim the truth to try to save some and maybe by God's grace many or most. People who doubt the inerrancy of scripture never think about any of this but they should.

The line from that which they doubt the Word to a life they don't want to live is very straight. The line grows even more straight as it uncoils - just like the hangman's rope.