However, there is an increasing body of evidence which indicates that both parent and daughter elements, under the proper conditions, can migrate in the rocks, thus radically affecting any result that might be obtained.
Clearly, the evolutionary clocks are drastically in need of repair!
Not only are the evolutionary claims regarding the age of the earth without adequate support, there are a number of genuine scientific evidences that point to a relatively “young” earth. Thomas Barnes, professor emeritus of physics at the University of Texas, has done extensive research in the decay of the earth’s magnetic field.
[For a refutation of the false ideas advocated by Dr.
Ross, see Van Bebber and Taylor 1994.] One writer states: “Any attempt to ascribe a specific or even a general age to either man or the Earth from a Biblical standpoint is a grievous error” (Clayton 1968, Lesson 4, 3).
It must be assumed that no lead-206 was in the rock at the time of its formation.
But what if lead-206 was a part of the original creation?There is no scientific proof that the earth is billions of years old. The techniques for dating the earth result from uniformitarian (evolutionary) assumptions.The average layman thinks there is, but he is mistaken. Stephen Moorbath, an evolutionist associated with the University of Oxford, wrote: No terrestrial rocks closely approaching an age of 4.6 billion years have yet been discovered. Radiometric methods for dating the earth’s rocks are based upon the decay sequences of certain elements.It is acknowledged that the rock above these pockets is porous enough to allow the pressure to escape in a matter of several thousand years. He contends it is evidence for a young earth (1970, 5).Actually, there are many tell-tale features of the earth which suggest that its existence is not to be measured in terms of billions of years. John Morris devotes an entire chapter to “Geologic Evidence for a Young Earth” (1994, 93-117).That would invalidate the accuracy of the age-estimate.