Age of the Earth Creation/evolution Physics Science

Doesn’t radiometric dating prove that the Earth is billions of years old?

So-called science alleges that the earth is about 4.6 billion years old.  The claim is that radiometric dating methods all support this age of the earth and the solar system and as a result the time line derived from the Bible, of only about 6000 years, must be wrong. Dr Jim Mason presents some compelling arguments to answer the title question. He covers radiometric dating techniques, including the one that most people are familiar with, carbon-14. He shows that the three primary assumptions in all those methods cannot be relied upon to be correct. Rocks of known age, by eye-witness accounts of their formation in the case of solidification of volcanic lava, are incorrectly dated by various radiometric decay chains. So, why would you trust the same methods to date rocks of unknown age?

Lecture was given August 1st 2015. See Age and Reason Seminar Adelaide for details.

Recommended Viewing

See also other lectures given at the same seminar:

By John Gideon Hartnett

Dr John G. Hartnett is an Australian physicist and cosmologist, and a Christian with a biblical creationist worldview. He received a B.Sc. (Hons) and Ph.D. (with distinction) in Physics from The University of Western Australia, W.A., Australia. He was an Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Outstanding Researcher Award (DORA) fellow at the University of Adelaide, with rank of Associate Professor. Now he is retired. He has published more than 200 papers in scientific journals, book chapters and conference proceedings.

4 replies on “Doesn’t radiometric dating prove that the Earth is billions of years old?”

BEST presentation on this subject that I have ever seen! (And I’m approaching two half-lifes myself! :D]
Thank you all so much.


Do you plan to explore the helium in zircons from other places? It would be very exciting to get the same results from different fields. And I want to ask about the radiocarbon in diamonds, some critics say, that it can be formed vrezultate neutron capture. But how can the neutrons penetrate the diamond? Othing at the expense of areas where diamonds are underlain whether tamurana lot and thorium (which emit neutrons)? It could be the last neutron flux above? I read in a book about the RATE study, it could be much greater if the collapse was accelerated by many times. But are there any other ways to increase the neutron flux than that? P.S. I ask this in order to refute all possible hypotheses, which evolutionists can offer. It is very important for me to investigate this matter.


I know of no future plans to sample zircons from other fields. The argument of neutron capture seems desperate. Neutrons would do significant damage to the crystal lattice and besides where is the supply of a significant neutron flux on timescales less than 60,000 years? This means that if the evolutionist wants to explain it that way he needs a recent dosing of neutrons to diamonds at depth, maybe 200 km, and delivered within 60,000 years to get the pMC level in the diamonds up to the level measured. I ask Dr John Baumgardner about any refutation due to contamination as claimed by one critic and he responded here. Several words in your comment don’t seem to be English words, so I may not understand everything you have written.


Comments are closed.