Share 0
A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 5Issue 1 Cover

Creation 5(1):17
June 1982

Free Email News
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $14.00
View Item
Editor’s note: As Creation magazine has been continuously published since 1978, we are publishing some of the articles from the archives for historical interest, such as this. For teaching and sharing purposes, readers are advised to supplement these historic articles with more up-to-date ones available by searching

In Brief—Summary of technical article for the layman
‘Radiometric Dating and the Age of the Earth’ (page 41-44 in this issue)

4.5 Billion Years

Before 1955, it was popular to believe the age of the earth was only 3 billion years. During 1955 an evolutionary scientist by the name of Patterson2 claimed the age of the earth to be the same as that of meteorites. These he dated at 4.5 billion years. He believed that the meteorites were left-over remains of material dating from the time of formation of the earth and other planets. The value of 4.5 billion years for the age of the earth is now the popular belief used by most evolutionary scientists. This is accepted in spite of the 1972 research by a scientist named Gale21, showing that Patterson’s beliefs about where the lead in meteorites came from, was provably wrong. Gale showed that there was simply too much lead in meteorites to claim that it formed from uranium. Much of the lead had originally been in the meteorite. Therefore, despite the claims in school books, university lectures, and in the media, meteorites and the earth are not ‘proven’ to be 4.5 billion years old.

Edited Data

Such widespread beliefs as the 4.5 billion years of age, and the infallibility of the radiometric dating methods, are unfortunately kept in the public view by two rules agreed upon by many scientists, i.e. if a date disagrees with 4.5 billion years it must be wrong-and if dates do not fit the expected view of evolutionary history, they are simply edited out of any data published.
References to these practices are given in the Technical Article under the headings, Concordant Data and Selective Publication21-34.


  1. Faul, H. ‘Nuclear Geology’ John Wiley & Sons Inc. New York p257 [1954)
  2. Patterson, C., Tilton, G. & lnghram, M., Science 121 69 (1955) Return to text.
  3. The outstanding example of this is the rejection of all geochronometers that indicate a significantly younger age than 4.5 b.y.
  4. Reference 1, p18.
  5. Dudley, H.C. ‘The Morality of Nuclear Planning’ Kronos Press in association with the centres of Interdisciplinary Studies, Glaseboro State College. Glaseboro, New Jersey p61 [1976]
  6. Dudley, H.C. Chem. and Eng. News p2 April 7 [1975]
  7. Read, J. Chem. and Eng. News p5 July 14 (1975)
  8. Pauling, L. ibid.
  9. Emery, G.T. Ann. Rev. Nuclear Science 22 165 [1972)
  10. Anderson, J.L. J. Phys. Chem. 76 3603 (1972)
  11. Anderson, J.L. and Spangler, G.W. J. Phys. Chem. 77 3114 (1973)
  12. Hahn, H.-P., Born, H.-J. and Kim, J.I. Radiochimica Acta 23 23 [1976)
  13. Barton Jnr. J.M. Canad. J. Earth Sciences 14 1641 (1977]
  14. Faul, H. reference 1 p264
  15. Russell, R.D. and Farquhar, R.M. ‘Lead Isotopes in Geology’ Interscience Publishers New York [1960)
  16. Cook, M.A. ‘Prehistory and Earth Models’ Max Parrish London p44 (1966)
  17. Faul, H. reference 1 p298
  18. Cook, M.A. reference 16 p37
  19. Faul, H. ‘Ages of Rocks, Planets and Stars’ McGraw-Hill Book Co. p75 [1966)
  20. Reference 19 p74
  21. Gale, N.H., Arden, J. and Hutchison, R. Nature Phys. Science 240 57 [1972)Return to text.
  22. Chem. and Eng. News, Summary of an Amer. Chem. Soc. symposium, p330 January 23 [1956)Return to text.
  23. Sabine, P.A. and Watson, J.J. Geol. Soc. London 12 525 (1965)
  24. Encyclopedia Britannica Vol 5 p505 [1976)
  25. Reference 1 p258
  26. Reference 16 p64
  27. Reference 16 p66
  28. Mauger, R.L. Contributions to Geology 15 37 [1977)
  29. Bath, A.H. J. Geolog. Soc. London 130 570 (1974)
  30. Haystsu, A. Canad. J. Earth Sciences 16 974 [1979)
  31. Houtermans, F.G. ‘The Physical Principles of Geochronology’ Coltoques Internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique No.151 p242 [1966]
  32. Science May/June p55 [1980). What is not said in this article is that other ages ranging from 2 to 28 b.y. have been obtained.
  33. Reference 19 p69
  34. Woodmorappe, J. Creation Research Society Quarterly 16 102 (1979)

Where are you while reading this article? In the privacy of your own home? The internet, and this site in particular, can be a powerful tool for reaching those who would never go to church. Keep the penetration going by supporting this outreach. Support this site

Copied to clipboard
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.