Decades later, when I was in my mid-50s, I came to believe in a young-earth view of creation after taking the time to investigate the actual scriptural, observational, and experimental evidences for both the young- and old-earth hypotheses. I spent my career as a nuclear physicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory and the Fermi National Accelerator. Statistical Determination of Genre in Biblical Hebrew: Evidence for an Historical Reading of Genesis 1:1–2:3. Hopefully our readers now understand that using the various types of radioisotope decay as clocks does not consistently produce concordant results, nor is it verified by observational evidence.
Now in my 60s, God has placed me in a unique position here at the Institute for Creation Research to further dispel the common notion that radioactive dating somehow proves the earth is billions of years old. If these radioisotope decay methods do not properly date rocks of known ages, how can we trust them to date rocks of unknown ages?
The detailed investigation presented in this series provides a compelling case that radioisotope dating does not prove that the earth is old as is routinely taught in schools throughout our country. Trusting these methods to give factual dates would then be a matter of faith, not science.
Author’s note: I was about nineteen when I realized Darwinian evolution was unscientific and completely rejected it, but I didn’t give much thought to a “young earth” at the time. Boyd presented a particularly persuasive argument for this interpretation of Scripture in .* My search ultimately led me to conclude that the biblical account was absolutely accurate and that God did not expect me to believe in something that was counter to the rational evidence all around me. Secularists would have us accept their convoluted, circular arguments as scientific fact simply because the majority of people in the academic community embrace them.Is the tactical element of rugby union with its lineouts and scrums and kicks for territory more appealing?Or is it better to watch constant movement and a game where catching, passing, and tackling are the key skills?The CM site is, to our knowledge, the oldest in situ, well-documented archaeological site in North America and, as such, substantially revises the timing of arrival of Homo into the Americas.Extended Figure 3b: Plan view of in situ femoral heads in grid units D3/E3, which also contained a claimed anvil and mastodon molar fragments If real, this would be the Khwarezmian sack of a self-assured scientific consensus by invaders from the far fringes of Pleistocene American archaeology. Still reading the paper but the archaeologists I’ve spoken to have been unanimous in saying no.