Another reference for dating events comes in the form of dendrochronology, or the study of tree rings. Observing the cross section of a tree, one can easily see that there is a network of concentric growth rings throughout. Traditionally it is held that trees add one growth ring per year, consisting of a light portion and a dark portion. As there are a few kinds of tree that live for several thousand years, including the famous Bristlecone Pines, researchers have, through examinations of both individual tree rings and through cross-referencing the rings of a number of trees, produced “chronologies” that stretch into the past as much as 10,000 years! These in turn are sometimes used to assist in establishing the timing of various anthropological events. Of course, this poses a problem for those who trust in a literal rendering of the Bible, which seems to limit the age of the Earth to less than that.
Moving on, outside of radiometric inquiries we find the use of both thermoluminescence and optically stimulated luminescence dating employed occasionally.
Aside from geological resources, there are those who look to ancient cultures and their records for ammunition against the Bible and its historical accounts. They claim that the histories of several cultures immediately dispel the authenticity and authority of the Bible because the timelines are not compatible. For instance, most adherents of Biblical young-earth creationism hold that the planet and all that exist on it are less than ten thousand years or so in age, with a great many such believers going further, trusting instead that creation is actually less than seven thousand years old. Such a recent creation stands in stark opposition to the claims of certain notable cultures, such as the Egyptians and the Babylonians, each having made claims of their civilization’s antiquity at ages of 11,000 years and 730,000 years respectively. In each case, the cultures have provided an apparent wealth of evidence, including various chronicles and genealogies, to support their claims. As such, what is one to make of these accounts? Do the histories of these and other cultures immediately discredit a literal reading of Genesis, thereby dismantling the trustworthiness of the Bible as a whole? Could it instead be that something else is going on?
Turning our attention now to a phenomenon that involves both geological formations and the effects of radiation, we must examine, at least in passing, those enigmatic microscopic scars, radiohalos. Unbeknownst to most people, the beautiful slabs of granite that we use for decoration and function in our homes and to commemorate those who have passed contain a special secret that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Hidden amidst its many crystalline components, granite tends to possess a dark, glossy material known as biotite. Under examination, it can be seen that these biotite fragments are composed of a range of finer materials, including zircon crystals, and these in turn are typically surrounded by dark, concentric rings. 1 These are radiohalos, and their presence in these materials should not be dismissed lightly.
Looking at radiometric dating from another angle, as the case described above illustrates, exogenous radioisotopes can and do influence testing. True as that fact may be, it can hardly be said that all radiometric results can be blamed on such contamination. We are left then with a choice: either those samples that were unaffected by exogenous isotopes yielded good data, establishing valid dates for the sample tested, or alternatively, radioisotope decay rates can be directly altered through forces unrelated to pure contamination. Given all available evidence, I believe the latter to be true, and new research supports that position.
Serious researchers, those thoroughly groomed by the established authorities of the field, have an understanding, even an unwavering faith, in the fact that radiometric dating methods are definitive in the data they provide, and that those absolute dates represent good, trustworthy data on which to build a case for deep-time. There is no “wiggle room” for these people, no justification for questioning the established truths of the field. After all, there is no valid reason to ever stand in opposition to such solid evidence for deep-time, for all know, without question, that the decay of radioisotopes is steady, persistent, and flawless. Many have built their careers, staked their research and their professional reputations, on this fact. Through the undeniable quality of the work in this field, the evolution paradigm and ancient naturalism in general have found sure footing amongst the masses. Even so, how accurate are these dating methods really?
Even beyond those phenomena, there remain a great many other hurdles to the mainstream notion of geological age. Consider how the geomagnetic field of the planet, which is absolutely critical to life on Earth, is decaying rapidly…
Even if one was so stubborn as to refuse to question the assertions of the geological deep-time advocates, there yet exists another form of fossil evidence that should unrelentingly force us to seek adequate explanations. Take, for instance, a few select dinosaur fossils. While the mainstream insists that the dinosaurs died off some 65 million years ago, new fossil finds force us to reconsider that. The first of these occurred in the early 2000s, involving a particularly large tyrannosaurus femur which had to be broken into two pieces for transport, and with it the standard paradigm began to tremble…
Time and again, as we look to the fossils found throughout the strata of the world, we should be amazed by many obvious examples of anomalies that exist in plain sight. For instance, though we are told of evolution’s endless march towards perfection, why is it that so many “ancient” fossil forms exist that are identical to modern forms? There are a staggering number of worms, mollusks, and arthropods preserved around the world that are essentially indistinguishable from their modern descendants, and similarly, we find a vast number of more complex animals today that are virtually identical to their fossil forebears.
What are we to make of fossils that seemingly contradict the standard model, existing in layers they are not supposed to? This is a frequent occurrence, 1 and as with much else, it is typically explained away in kind. For some, such as those consisting of ancient fossils occurring in younger sediment, the mainstream attests that this is simply a case of disturbance, whereby the ancient fossils have been reworked into the younger strata, incorporated over time within those fresh sediments. One must question though what degree of luck it would require for the rock surrounding an ancient fossil to be largely eroded away, only to have a new wave of deposition occur just in time to preserve the fossil therein…