The Fossil Record: Evolution or "Scientific Creation"

Clifford A. Cuffey

Age of the Earth

A complete discussion of the age of the earth is beyond the scope of this article; Dalrymple (1991) provided an excellent and readable account. It is necessary, however, to briefly review the arguments because “creation scientists” adhe re to a young age for the earth in part because they recognize that a short earth history would not permit sufficient time for evolution to have occurred (Morris, 1994, p. 69).

“Creation scientists” state that the earth is young, between 6,000 and 10,000 years old (Gish, 1995, p. 48; Morris, 1985, p. 158). That is based on genealogical lists in the Bible (Gish, 1995, p. 48; Morris, 1985, p. 247-250) worked out by Bishop Ussher. Ussher concluded the earth was created in the year 4004 B.C. (Brice, 1982). That places the date of the “great flood” at 2348 B.C. (Morris, 1985, p. 247), either at the end of the Fifth, or the beginning of the Sixth, Dynasty (Old Ki ngdom) of ancient Egypt. That post-dates several of the largest pyramids, including those of Djoser, Sneferu, and Cheops (Quirke & Spencer, 1992, p. 223; Siliotti, 1994, p. 38; Ikram & Dodson, 1998, p. 321). Thus, recorded history contradicts the Biblical chronology. Morris (1985, p. 249) acknowledged that both the creation week and the “great flood” and could have happened earlier. Why is there this discrepancy if the Genesis chapters are “...accurate accounts of the actual events of the primeva l history...” (Morris, 1985, p. 203; see also Morris, 1985, p. 205, 206, 215; Gish, 1995, p. 19)?

“Creation scientists” claim that the decay of the earth’s magnetic field limits the earth’s age to less than 10,000 years (Morris, 1985, p. 157, 158). That is based on assumptions known to be false, ignores the fact that the magnetic field has reversed repeatedly throughout earth history, and is therefore an invalid method of measuring the age of the earth (Brush, 1982, 1983, p. 300, 301, 337-341; Miller, 1984, p. 40, 41). “Creation scientists” assert that other methods limit the age of the earth to much less than billions of years (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 379-387; Morris, 1985, p. 149-160, 167-169; Morris, 1994; Sarfati, 1999, p. 103-115). For example, Morris (1985, p. 153-155) estimated maximum ages of the earth based on th e influx of certain elements into the ocean, ranging from 100 years for aluminum to 260,000,000 years for sodium (Morris, 1985, p. 154). The fact that the earth is obviously older than 100 years indicates that this is not a credible method. That method is also fatally flawed because it does not adequately account for the removal of such elements from the ocean water. Sodium has been repeatedly removed by precipitation of evaporite deposits, which are abundant throughout the rock record (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 305-309, 310-311, 338, 339, 3 41, 392). Furthermore, “creation scientists” claim that scientific methods of dating rocks, such as radiometric dating, are not reliable (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 332-344, 346-368, 368-370, 370-378, Morris, 1985, p. 133, 137-149, 161-167). Morris (1985 , p. 137, 138) stated that all of these methods yield apparent ages; “...The true age of the earth can only be known by means of divine revelation...” (Whitcomb & Morris, 1961, p. 346; also Morris, 1985, p. 138). Divine revelation is not science.

In contrast, multiple lines of evidence indicate the earth is much older than 6,000 years. Radiometric dating indicates that the earth is approximately 4.54 billion years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 396), the oldest rocks are approximat ely 3.9 billion years old (Dalrymple, 1991, p. 400), and that the oldest fossils are approximately 3.5 billion years old (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 195). The fact that several radioactive decay series with different decay rates and decay processes con sistently point to the same age strengthens this conclusion (Newell, 1982, p. 105-124; Brush, 1983, p. 297-300, 308-326; Miller, 1984, p. 24-36; Dalrymple, 1991; Dott & Prothero, 1994, 96-106). For a thorough explanation of why the criticisms of radio metric dating are neither valid nor credible see Newell (1982, p. 105-124), Alexander (1983, p. 350-353), Brush (1983, p. 296-301, 305-341), Miller (1984, p. 24-39), and Dalrymple (1991).

The very nature of the stratigraphic record itself contradicts the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old. Because the sedimentary rock record was deposited by normal uniformitarian processes (e.g. Cuffey, 1999), not by the “great flood,” and because the rates of these processes (whether episodic or continuous) can be estimated, the great thickness of sedimentary rocks leads us to the logical and inescapable conclusion that the earth is very ancient. Hutton’s rationale for “no vest ige of a beginning, no prospect of an end” is still valid today after 200+ years of scientific investigation (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 31). In addition, tree-ring chronology (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 95), annual banding in glacial ice cores (All ey et al., 1997; Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 95), oxygen isotope curves (Dott & Prothero, 1994, p. 95), and the distance of astronomical objects (Brush, 1983, p. 296, 297, 305-307) all contradict the belief that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Indeed, “creation scientists” cannot present any credible evidence that consistently indicates a very young age for earth. All are based on assumptions known to be incorrect, factually incorrect statements, misinterpretations of data , and out of context quotes. Nor can credible evidence be presented to falsify an ancient age for the earth. Morris (1994, p. 69) stated, “...we must acknowledge that, to some degree, the radioisotope techniques are loosely compatible with the view that t he earth and its systems are millions or billions of years old...” and furthermore, “We can’t disprove old-earth ideas...” In contrast, multiple lines of evidence do contradict an earth age of 6,000 years. The inescapable conclusion is that the earth is v ery ancient, not 6,000 years old.

Questions or Comments about GCSSEPM?

Send us e-mail and we will get back to you as soon as we can.