(Disclaimer: This transcript is auto-generated and may contain mistakes.)

Hey everybody, it's Pastor Shelley from The Baptist Biased, and I wanted to make a quick video to talk about the geologic column specifically, and something that was brought up in a recent podcast where we had Dr. Kent Hovind and we had Pastor Steven Anderson on discussing young earth creation elements that we were talking about the age of the universe and the age of the earth. But specifically, I wanted to talk about one of the things that was brought up regarding radiometric dating and the geologic column. Now, radiometric dating has a few different methods as far as calculations that are used in giving dates or ages to particular rocks. Igneous rocks are what are typically used for potassium-argon radiometric dating techniques, and they are measuring the half-life of these particular elements. You can read a lot about it. I'm not an expert on that particular subject, but at the same time, that doesn't mean that I can't understand the general logic that's being used and applied and really study the Bible and see if that matches. One of the things about the geologic column is most people will admit readily that there's no such thing as a geologic column in the world. It's rather a chart that's in a geology textbook to try and label the geologic features that we see found in different parts of the world. So there is no real place in the world that you can see this entire quote, geologic column, but rather there's several rock layers found all over the earth that have been labeled and classified according to the standard of the geologic column. Now, when you look at the geologic column, it has several different eras where they essentially give a particular section a date of time. And the question is, how do they come to these particular dates? Where are they getting these numbers from? Because sedimentary rock cannot be dated with radiometric dating techniques. However, in the midst of sedimentary layers where we find fossils, they also found igneous rock layers or samples, and they use those particular either samples or sections sandwiched in with all of the other sedimentary layers and fossils that they find, and they come to a conclusion of some estimated date based on the radiometric dating techniques. Once they've established a general basis or timeline for particular sections, they then now assign this particular rock layer with an estimate of a date range. Specifically, we could look at one period that a lot of people have heard about is the Jurassic period. You've probably seen movies like Jurassic Park. And the Jurassic period is classified based on the fossils that it finds. It finds a lot of fossils that we know as dinosaur bones or the T-Rex or the different dinosaurs that may have existed in times past. And this specific era is dated through radiometric dating techniques. And then anywhere they find fossils in the world that correspond to this particular classification, they then assign that particular date range to that particular rock layer. And so that's where you kind of hear this idea of, well, we date the fossils by the rock layer, and we date the rock layer by the fossils. And it kind of sounds like circular reasoning. It really is. But at the end of the day, the reason why they're coming to the numbers that they are is based on radiometric samples being taken out of those particular sections. And they're using radiometric dating techniques to get an estimate for that particular section and what they call that particular era, such as the Jurassic era. Well, when you study and you look through all of these particular classifications, you look at all these different eras, you'll notice that it really has every life form and every type of creature that we pretty much are familiar with today. I would grant that some dinosaur fossils and a few other plants or animals are rare or not found anymore. And so we do have a few exceptions, but generally speaking, the fish and the birds and the different mammals that we see in the world today pretty much correspond to the specific layers that we have. And I wanna read a particular portion of scripture on this. The Bible says, for this they willingly are ignorant of that by the word of God, the heavens were of old and the earth standing out of the water and in the water, whereby the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. So the Bible says that there's gonna be scoffers in the last day, and they're gonna be willingly ignorant of a few things. Number one, that the word of God created the heavens, that it created the earth, and another thing specifically in verse six of 2 Peter, is it says that the world that then was being overflowed with water perished. So it's also talking about the whole world, the whole world where we would see what man, beast, mammals, animals, just all kinds of different things. And the Bible says that they're willingly ignorant. That's important to me, because what that is trying to suggest based on the text is that the evidence of the global worldwide flood should be very obvious. It should be very manifest. And I would say that what we see in rock layers today is the very obvious evidence of a global worldwide flood. The process of fossilization is a special process where something is rapidly buried in a catastrophic event. So in order to have a giant section of our rock layers filled with virtually every single animal plant that we know today, all buried within this sedimentary rock, shows very clearly that a major catastrophic event happened, and that that catastrophic event essentially encapsulated almost every living thing that we would know today. Well, that fits exactly with what the Bible teaches. And if we are gonna say we believe the Bible, if we're gonna say that the Bible's true and we put our faith in scripture, then we would have to admit readily that all of those different rock layers that we see today with all the various animals and life forms and fossils, they were all laid down in the same time period within about a one-year period as a maximum through Noah's flood. It was probably even a shorter time window, but essentially all of those layers would have been formed within a one-year time span and approximately 4,600 years ago, based on the chronology of the Bible and when you look about when Noah would have been on this earth. So if we can look at all those various layers with all the different fossils that they have and us not being willingly ignorant of the flood, then we would have to assume that all of those rock layers would be dated within about a one-year window, that the top layer and the bottom layer, the middle layer, they would all yield dates through any dating technique that would be about the same timeframe and that it would be about 4,600 years ago. So whenever scientists today use radiometric dating and they come to the top layer being 100,000 years old or 10,000 years old, and then they keep going down and down and they say, now it's 100,000, now it's a million, now it's a hundred million, and then they even get to billions. And we say that there are all these varying degrees of numbers. Well, I'm gonna readily reject those numbers. I'm gonna say, you know what? There must be flaws in these dating techniques because if I'm gonna believe the Bible and I'm gonna agree that the whole world perished in a global worldwide flood, and that's exactly what we see in those particular layers, then I would have to know that their dating techniques are flawed and wrong. If I'm going to then reject the radiometric dating techniques for all of these top layers that we see in the geologic column all the way down to the Cambrian, which is kind of the known as the era in which life supposedly began through the evolutionary process. But we know that that's not true at all. Even if you go beyond those layers and we go down to the further layers where they're still dating samples of igneous rock, the radiometric dating techniques, I'm gonna reject those numbers as well. I'm not going to accept numbers below that particular threshold and reject the numbers that are above them. I believe that if you're gonna be consistent, you would have to say that it's all generally true or it's all generally false. But I don't see how anyone could accept the bottom numbers. They could say, well, I think that when they came to 3.8 billion or 4 billion years old dating certain rocks at the lowest layers and saying that this is where we derive the age of the earth, that that would be consistent if you are gonna reject the radiometric dating techniques employed to calculate all the other layers, the drastic layer or other layers where we find fossils that were clearly laid down in the global flood. Because I believe the Bible, because I believe that's overwhelming evidence of the global flood, I'm gonna reject the radiometric dating technique for those particular layers and then I'm gonna reject it for the bottom layer as well. So when scientists will say that the earth is 4.5 billion years, number one, they're assuming that the rock life cycle hasn't interrupted that particular process too much. And another assumption they're taking is they're taking rocks from the moon or other cosmic rocks and they're dating them through radiometric dating techniques and they're arriving at about the same number that they would estimate for the earth. So they're assuming that's the creation point or that's the timeline. But all that tells me, if you take a rock from the moon and you dated it and you take a rock from an asteroid or some cosmic rock and you date it and you get the same number from that, from the moon and from the earth, the only thing that tells me is that they were all created at the same time. It does not tell me the exact age whatsoever. And because they're consistently wrong on dating the ages of these particular layers, I believe they're wrong on the 4.5 billion year estimate as well. Now this is not a very popular opinion because if you take billions of years away, if you take that off the table for modern scientists today, well then their evolutionary theory is really just junk science. And of course it is junk science to say that bacteria turned into fish and the fish grew legs and they turned into mammals and then the mammals turned into humans. Any reasonable person would reject that and say, this is pseudoscience. There's nothing scientific about it. We don't see that whatsoever. All of these rock layers that you claim are hundreds and thousands of years old, we still have life forms and animals on the planet today that correspond to those particular fossils. So why did they not evolve over the hundreds of thousands of years or the millions of years? But additionally, as a bio-believing Christian, I don't even wanna acquiesce to 4.5 billion years when the method by which they arrive at that can be shown to be faulty and many known rock samples. I believe that there's some younger creationists who have sent in samples from Mount St. Helens, where they essentially gave them a rock sample, said, hey, will you date this particular rock sample? And it would have estimated only hundreds of years at maximum. And when they came back with the dating, it's 300,000 years or millions of years even, showing that when you have a rock where you know the age of it, radiometric dating techniques don't work. Whenever you have a rock that no one knows, well, then magically it always works, right? Well, that's, again, flawed logic. I believe that a lot of scientists came out and said, well, he lied when he turned in the sample. He didn't tell them that he knew the age and that it was from this particular area in Mount St. Helens. Yeah, of course, because if he told them that this rock sample is something that we know is 70 years old from Mount St. Helens, they're gonna say, well, at 70 years old, they're not gonna come up with these big numbers. Of course, the reason why they know it didn't work is because it didn't work and they have a known age. Whenever we have no known age of particular rock samples, then we're supposed to believe that it always works and that their number is always true. Well, unfortunately, because the Bible's clear, there's a lot of people that are willingly ignorant, I'm not going to accept that. And so I believe it's important for us as Bible-even Christians to push back on things that are not truly scientific. If there is a scientific method by which known samples can be dated accurately and that they're very consistent with everything that we would assume based on known ages, then I might give more credence to extrapolating that data. But whenever they are failing at giving samples that have known ages the correct timeline, why would I then ever subscribe to them extrapolating data from that particular model? It seems very clear that there's a lot of error and flaws in some of these dating techniques. There's a lot of assumptions brought in. And again, I'm not against the science of radiometric dating because I'm sure the logic is true that if we could assume how much potassium argon and these different elements were in the rock and at its initial state when it formed, and we could assume the decay rate has always stayed the same, and we can assume that there's no contamination within that particular rock sample, then there's nothing wrong with their mathematical calculation. The problem is there's always assumptions put in that nobody really knows. And when we test it against things that are known, it seems to fail often. And I believe that many scientists today, they don't want to readily admit that these flaws are strong enough evidence to throw everything out because then they would have to say, well, maybe we're wrong on the evolutionary theory as well. Maybe the Bible actually is true. But because people are willingly ignorant, I don't think that modern science will probably ever reconcile on this particular issue. So I just wanted to make a video just to kind of address that. Throughout this video, I put a lot of different things on the screen so you can kind of see. I'll put some links in the video description as well so you can check them out. But I hope that you make sure that whenever you study these subjects or you think about them, that we apply the same kind of scrutiny that we do to every subject. We want to make sure that just because it sounds good, it's still accurate and scientific. And we want to also make sure it matches with the Bible. Well, I hope this video is blessing to you. God bless, have a great day.