There are many contrasting views on the actual age of the earth. While many people adopt the evolutionists’ view and believe that the earth is around 4.6 billion years, others sharply refute this view and believe that the universe is much younger than that. Theist evolutionists, on the other hand, seem to support both the evolutionists' opinions while embracing the Christian teachings from the book of Genesis. The crucial point, however, for this hotly contested topic is the claim by some that the old earth view assumes the evolutionary theory and, therefore, by implication rejects the necessity for the biblical creation. From this standpoint, the Bible and in particular the book of Genesis look mythical. This paper picks the topic on the Age of the earth (radioisotope dating vs. alternative methods) and aims at comparing and contrasting the old earth view and the new earth view on the age of the earth.
Old Earth View
The support for the old earth view started amongst the philosophers and scientists from the 18th century onwards with the development of the scientific revolution, the age of enlightenment as well as the new scientific discoveries (McCarthy & Rubisge, 2005). With the development of geological discoveries, scientists started to date the earth to billion years as opposed to thousands of years as developed by young earth view. Radioisotope dating is founded on the fact that there is the decay of radioactive isotopes to form isotopes of different elements. The original isotope is known as the parent while the product is known as the daughter (McCarthy & Rubisge, 2005). The period it takes for half of the parent isotope to decay is known as half-life. If specific things are known, then one can calculate the time that the parent atom began to decay. The age found through this assumption is sometimes faulted since it is based on certain crucial assumptions. The radioisotope dating technique takes the following three assumptions:
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The rate of decay for the radioactive isotopes has stayed constant since the formation of the rock
There is no gain or loss of the daughter or parent isotope from the rock
The quantity of daughter or parent isotope present when the rock was formed is known.
The above-indicated assumptions, however, do not fall short of weaknesses. For example, for the first assumption, there is no way that one can prove that the rate of decay remained constant and was not different at some point in the past. The claim on the regular rate of decay is an inference founded on the assumption of uniformitarian. While it is true that the rate of decay of radioisotopes are stable today because it is not affected by external factors such as pressure and temperature (Vardiman, Snelling & Chaffin, 2005), one cannot assume entirely similarity for the past.
According to a research done by McCarthy & Rubisge (2005), there is evidence to prove that there was an accelerated rate of decay in the past. This evidence is found in the zircon crystals. In granite, zircon crystals contain uranium-2 38, which decays into the lead after an extended period. As the uranium decays, helium crystals are produced. From that point, helium begins to escape from crystals at a measurable and known rate. If the rocks were there billions of years ago as claimed by the evolutionists, the helium would have leaked out of the rock (Gould, 2002). The existence of the huge amount of helium in the crystals is evidence disputing the old earth view. The creation scientists believe that there are two times when God intervened supernaturally on a global scale, the flood and during the creation period. It may be reasonable to assume that God used energy to speed up the radioactive decay to drive and initiate the significant geologic changes which came with the flood.
The second assumption that there has not been any gain or loss of the isotopes in the rock does not consider the effect of weathering by groundwater and surface as well as the diffusion of gases (Gould, 2002). There is no way that one can know the degree that the daughter and parent isotopes have been removed or added to the rocks over the billion years as alleged. The third assumption does not consider the fact that isotopes can be inherited from surrounding rocks or areas of the magmas as they pass through the crust and the mantle of the earth. The evolutionists do not make efforts to do away with the errors.
Young Earth View
The growth of fundamentalist Christianity at the beginning of the 20th century came with a renewed support of the original proposal that the earth was a thousand years old as a way to reject the evolution theory which was popularized by the scientists. Christian scholars put efforts into doing research and used the scripture to disapprove the old earth view. The Bible and in particular the Book of Genesis became the foundation of the new generation believers of the young earth view who sought to interpret the formations of geology within the viewpoint of the Young Earth Creationists. For the young earth theorists, a literal six days creation theory in the book of Genesis offers the most simple and clear interpretation of the origin of the earth (Genesis Chapter 1-2, The Authorized Kings James Version). The young earth theorists further disagree with the evolutionists with their view of the geological evidence as they claim that the great flood pointed out in the book of Genesis transformed the earth and altered the geological record (Vardiman, Snelling & Chaffin, 2005). In fact, the Christians attribute the fossil records as a consequence of the flood.
The great flood attaches great significance to the biblical story in explaining the geological strata and the fossil record. Nisbet (2012) supports this view with a whole argumentation to the evidence provided by evolutionists though surrounded with pseudoscientific misconception. The young earth believers support their claims with the fact that there has not been significant development of the earth since its creation and that creation has continued to remain steady since the beginning without any significant changes. Clinging on this point, the young earth theorists seem not to understand why the evolution of humankind has stopped instead of progressing to a more advanced level if the allegations of the evolutionists are something to go by.
Similarities between the Old Earth Secular View and the New Earth view
Both the two aspects cannot be proven with finality since there are presumptions associated with each view. Both the old earth theorists and the young earth believers acknowledge the fact that they do not have all answers to the many questions regarding the earth. The young earth theorists believe in the Bible as the perfect word of God which cannot lie. Even so, the bible in its completeness does not provide all answers to how the earthworks. The bible also does not substantiate or offer the proof to the creation story in the book of Genesis. The evolutionists, on the other hand, do not provide all answers to fundamental questions such as where the first matter came from.
Both the old earth theorists and the young earth believers agree that there is an order to the fossil record. The fossil record comprises of millions of animal and plant remains which have turned into stones over time. The remains are piled up in several layers and sediments of hard rocks. While the young earth theorists attribute the order of fossils to the Great Noah floods in the Bible, (Genesis 6, 17, The Authorized King James Version) the evolutionists believe that the order of fossils support the evolution point of view that the animals and humans evolved from microorganisms. The bible implies that before the great floods, the earth was stable and therefore only a few organisms were fossilized.
Differences between the young earth viewpoint and the old earth viewpoint
Age of the earth
The young earth theorists believe that the universe is 6000- 7000 billion years as opposed to the 4.6 billion years fronted by the old earth theorists. The old earth theorists use geological methods such as radioisotope dating to find the age of the earth while the young earth theorists use the bible as their source of evidence to their claims. The young earth believers dispute the methods used by the old earth believers to demonstrate the geological history. The Institute for Creation Research between the period of 1997 and 2005 conducted research known as RATE (Radioisotope and Age of the Earth) to determine the accuracy and validity of the radioisotope dating technique (Vardiman, Snelling & Chaffin, 2005). Whereas they found overwhelming evidence to prove million years of radioactive decay, they also claimed to have found overwhelming evidence to prove the young earth. Through their report, they argued that the rates of nuclear decay were accelerated by a factor of one billion during the period of creation and the flood (Vardiman, Snelling & Chaffin, 2005). Even so, when they were subjected to scrutiny by experts, their analyses were found to be flawed.
The History of Humans
Young earth theorists reject the evidence of human evolution and physical anthropology and believe that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of the human. The great flood as reported in the book of Genesis is considered to have cleared all the humans on earth leaving only Noah and his sons and wives (Genesis 6-7, The Authorized King James Version), and thus the young earth proponents believe that the human race is a descendant of Noah. This is opposed to the old earth theorists who believe that humans evolved from the apes and developed to the point they are now. The evolutionists provide evidence of the evolution of living things from microorganisms to the end they are now. Even so, there are several limitations to the evolutionist theory with several questions lacking answers.
Conclusion
Both the old earth view and the new earth view have unique attributes to the age of the earth attached to the beliefs which hold great significance in equal measure. The old earth proponents believe that the universe is 4.6 billion years while the young earth proponents believe that the age of earth ranges between six thousand to seven thousand years. The old earth theorists attribute their claims to the geological evidence using radioisotope dating while the young earth theory attributes their claims to the bible and especially the book of Genesis. Both the two views agree that they cannot prove their claims with finality since they do not have all the answers regarding the age of the earth. The differences are demonstrated in their different claims on the age of the earth and the history of humans.
References
Bible, B. (2015). The Holy Bible The Authorized King James Version . Century Publishing.
Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory . Harvard University Press.
McCarthy, T., & Rubisge, B. (2005). The Story of Earth & Life: A Southern Africa Perspective on a 4.6 Billion-year Journey . Struik.
Nisbet, E. G. (2012). The young Earth: an introduction to Archaean geology . Springer Science & Business Media.
Vardiman, L., Snelling, A., & Chaffin, E. F. (Eds.). (2005). Radioisotopes and the age of the earth: A young-earth creationist research initiative (Vol. 2). Institute for Creation Research.
