In thermoluminescent dating and radiometric dating scientists have to assume that at some point there was no isotope decay present in the material when it was first created. That’s where their calculations are thrown off. They’re expecting that at some point there was no decay present in the material and my position is that they must be wrong because we don’t know how much decay was present when it was created 6,000 years ago. We don’t know what these materials were exposed to during the creation process or how it would’ve affected them. Adam & Eve were created as adults, I think we can all agree with that. Their bodies showed signs of age even tho they were created in one day. I won’t even go into carbon dating because it’s dead, they’ve finally come to the realization that it’s not reliably accurate enough but they weren’t saying that 10 years ago were they? 10 years ago they had the best technology and carbon dating proved that the earth was old, now it’s considered obsolete and unreliable. The age of the earth has been changing according to scientists for over 150 years and every time they have another breakthrough anything other than their predicted age is considered absurd. Yet over and over they’ve managed to prove themselves wrong starting from 20 million years all the way up to 4.5 billion years. Look at how far they were off when they thought they knew it all 150 years ago. People need to realize that the age of the earth has not been proven to be over 6,000 years old, that’s just a prediction not a fact. They’re trying to look into the past according to what we see today. Let me give you an example. Let’s say we walk into a room and there’s a glass of water sitting under a dripping faucet and I ask you how long has that glass been there. You could calculate the amount of water that is dripping over time and conclude that it’s been there for 2 hours. Then in the corner of the room we see a camera pointed at the glass. We go and look at the video footage and see that someone came in, got a drink of water, then put the glass under the faucet half full just 5 minutes ago. Now before we had that information from the camera all the evidence suggested that the glass was there for two hours, it was a justifiable conclusion but the missing information revealed by the camera radically changed the conclusion despite the evidence we had before seeing it. So the evidence wasn’t wrong in the beginning only the conclusion we came to. In the same way the rate of decay we see in different isotopes might be correct but without knowing how much decay the material had 6,000 years ago it still doesn’t actually prove anything. I’m sure you hear about tree rings, the oldest tree we’ve found as of today is only 4,900 years old. I assume you’ve heard of ice layers. Ice layers aren’t formed by years they’re formed by freezing and melting temperatures which can happen several times per year. It all depends on how much snow fell between each melting period. Scientists say that the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, yet we can see light from stars 46 billion light years away. A light year is how far light can travel in one year. That’s a big discrepancy. The Bible says that God made the lights in the heavens to be signs of the seasons. Obviously these would be signs for man, not God. So naturally it wouldn’t make any sense to create stars that man couldn’t see if they were intended to be used by man as signs of the seasons. The Bible also says several times that God stretched out the heavens. So perhaps those stars weren’t as far away 6,000 years ago as they are today, not to mention that scientists do teach that the universe is expanding. They also say that 9 billion years ago the expansion decelerated and 4 billion years ago it accelerated again. That’s weird that objects traveling thru space would decelerate then accelerate again, very strange. I’ve looked into these things because I have to know if the creation account in Genesis has actually been proven wrong and it really hasn’t. The arguments I’ve encountered are, “you can’t assume that there was isotopic decay in materials from the beginning” which really isn’t a viable argument given the circumstances since we don’t know what these materials were exposed to and how it might affect the decay process. So I feel that my argument is just as viable as their’s. They’re saying the glass was empty when it was placed under the faucet and I’m saying you don’t know that for sure because I have a record from God Himself telling me when the glass was created and it wasn’t 4.5 billion years ago. So please understand that my reasoning is nothing like the flat earther’s reasoning because I’m not contradicting anything that is actual proof. My argument is actually a viable and plausible argument.
