As we have seen, essentially every method of dating earthen material – be it geophysical, geochemical, archaeological, etc – is built on intricate assumptions that are absolutely crucial in regard to determining an accurate timeframe for the planet. Raising our eyes skyward however provides other insights. There is a great many evidences from the heavens above which can tell us much about the past, and unfortunately for most young-Earth creationists, such evidences oftentimes signal the death knell for conversations about deep-time, with most counterarguments to stellar dating methods sounding contrived and tenuous at best. Must it be so? Are the evidences against a young creation so great in space that it can immediately stall any true consideration? The answers may surprise you…
Interestingly, even human genetics indicates that the flood account of the Genesis is true. Recall, if you will, that human DNA comes packaged in the form of 23 pairs of chromosomes, half of each pair being provided by one’s mother, the other by the father. That said, it is the 23rd chromosome which determines gender in humans. Females carry a pair represented as XX, while the male 23rd chromosome is designated as XY. As children are conceived, they receive one X chromosome from their mother, yet that contributed by the father can be either his X or Y chromosome. If the father provides an X chromosome, the child will be female, yet if the Y chromosome is provided instead, then the child will be male. Given this direct transfer of the male-specific Y chromosome, all of the sons of that man will share his Y-chromosome, just as the father possessed the Y-chromosome of his father, and so on.
What does all this have to do with the age of the Earth? A great deal it seems, with the facts, evidences, and implications building to a larger truth. Beyond the obvious impact of alternatives to the mainstream model, there exists an underlying current of coincidence that should not be ignored.
In some cases, such artifacts (see the last post, concerning OOPARTs) are not so easily covered. These include architectural marvels that, due to their incredible designs and impressive sizes, should not have been possible by the ancients.
What’s amazing is that such evidences of an alternative history, contrary to that pushed by the mainstream, comes not only in the form of written records and oral traditions, but also, incredibly, in the form of anachronistic anomalies.
Not surprisingly considering what we have already discussed, it seems that mainstream historians, archaeologists, and others tend to have a great propensity for selective trust in their work. Oftentimes they take the histories of ancient cultures for granted, rushing to incorporate those records into the chronologies that are broadly accepted, and thereby using such as an argument against the Biblical record, yet remarkably they will ignore other, often better, accounts if they possess even the slightest bit of material that stands in opposition to the accepted model. Even the work of specific historians tends to be dismantled and reused in a piecemeal fashion.
How is it that some cultures could possess records and architecture older than the Scriptures if the Bible is supposed to be true? It is a good question and it absolutely requires a good answer. Many cultures have claimed over the years to have histories that predate the Bible, with such being heralded as a mark of accomplishment in some cases; a title of precious note. Interestingly, though mainstreamists rarely discuss it, we know that in many cases, histories of these and other early nations were not recorded until well after the events had passed…
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?