Not So Absolute

Radiometric dating is the crown jewel of the standard, naturalistic geology paradigm, perhaps the main reason many Bible-believing persons accept long geological ages.

Those who develop and use this dating method are careful, trustworthy scientists who use sophisticated procedures. Radiometric dating is not an item to ridicule or laugh at. Radiometric dating places the first fossil-bearing rocks (Cambrian) at approximately 540 million years ago, whereas the biblical account places this event only a few thousand years ago. I will summarize the nature of the radiometric dating process and then proceed to analyze the dates.

The Radiometric Dating Process

Some elements are unstable, and over time they gradually decay or change into stable elements. Radiometric dating measures this change as an indication of the passage of time. For example, a parent element, such as uranium-238, changes to its daughter product, lead-206. The time for half of the original element to decay (the half-life) has been measured, and this is how scientists measure time in rocks. 

There is no instrument that can take a rock sample and measure its age in years. The instruments in the dating lab measure the amount of parent element in a rock sample and the amount of daughter product in the same sample, and determine the ratio of these two amounts. This is what is actually measured—ratios. Then, based on our understanding of the decay process, the age of the rock is calculated.

Geochronologists have a detailed understanding of these technical laboratory procedures. We don’t see any significant problems or objections to the laboratory measurements. But there are serious questions about the history of the dated rock samples. A rock sample had been in the ground for several thousand years before we collected it. Are there forces in the earth that could have influenced the physical evidence in that sample? Were there forces during the Flood that could have affected the decay process?

Testing the Accuracy of Radiometric Dates

As scientists we always hope there is a test that can tell us whether our theories are confirmed. Is there a way to test whether radiometric dates of rock formed in the ancient past are accurate? These dates do follow a consistent, predictable pattern, showing that some rocks are older than others, but are the dates accurate?

The radiometric dating experts are excellent scientists, but they are seeking to accomplish an impossible task.

Do you know anyone who saw the Cambrian rocks form? Did anyone measure, for example, the time in years that passed from the depositing of the first Cambrian sediment layer to the first Cretaceous layer, so that we can compare that measured time with the radiometric time scale? Only if we can do that would we know that the radiometric dates are correct. But such tests are not possible, because we were not there. Because of this, radiometric dating cannot be an absolute measure of time. The radiometric dating experts are excellent scientists, but they are seeking to accomplish an impossible task. We cannot test the radiometric dating theory, but we can compare the radiometric time scale with other methods of measuring time, methods that don’t require us to travel back in time.

One example is a fossil from an ancient lake in the Green River Formation (GRF) in Wyoming, United States. There are many millions of fossil animals in its laminated sediment, almost all complete and beautifully preserved. There are also occasional layers of volcanic ash in the GRF that have been radiometrically dated. If the radiometric time scale is correct, only one or two thin laminae were deposited each year. We will focus on one fossil, a large coprolite (probably made by a crocodile).

A crocodile coprolite from the Eocene Green River Formation, Wyoming. The scale is in centimeters.

Coprolite is a polite name for fossil poop. We can all observe that poop, especially if it is in water, doesn’t last long without damage. This GRF coprolite sank into the soft, muddy laminae and was finally covered by more laminae. It took at least 200 of these amazingly uniform laminae to cover the coprolite, including the soft laminae pushed down under it. That means that according to the standard time scale it took one or two centuries to be completely buried with at least a little sediment.

What is the chance that the coprolite could survive that long, without significant damage, on the bottom of a lake containing numerous live fish and other animals? There is no chance of that! It would remain intact for only a few days at most. This tells us there is something seriously wrong with the radiometric dates. The available evidence says the coprolite had to be completely and rapidly buried.

Most paleontologists begin with several firmly held assumptions: (1) the Bible is wrong about earth history, (2) the radiometric dates are correct, and (3) there never was a global catastrophe such as the flood described in Genesis.

But what if those three assumptions are wrong? If that is so, then a much shorter time span with sediments very rapidly deposited in the Flood could help explain all those well-preserved fossils.

Conclusion

The information presented here, and much more, leads us to conclude that we don’t need to choose between radiometric dating or the Bible. Genesis and significant evidence from geology and paleontology both point to the same conclusion. They both indicate a timescale for earth’s history that is not measured in millions of years but was a catastrophically rapid time sequence.

Because of the evidence and reasoning provided here (and much more that could be presented),[*] we recommend that it is not wise to allow radiometric dating to be the cause of doubting the truth of the Genesis account of origins. We believe the scientists who develop this dating method are honest and reliable, but do not realize that their worldview and its assumptions are leading them to misunderstand some evidence and to ignore other evidence that contradicts the conclusions of radiometric dating.

[*] L. Brand and A. Chadwick, Geological History; Insights From Genesis and Geology (Nashville: New Creation, 2026).