Thousands not Billions: Challenging the Icon of Evolution, Questioning the Age of the Earth

by Donald DeYoung

"Evolutionary models for life, earth, and space are questioned today by a significant group of scientists worldwide. They are convinced that the earth and the entire universe are the result of a supernatural creation event which occurred just thousands of years ago, not billions of years." These and many other questions are addressed in Thousands...Not Billions. This book summarizes eight years of research by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) and a team of scientists, whose goal was to explore the age of the earth from a biblical perspective. The project title was Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth, or RATE. The age of the earth is one of the most divisive topics today, much debated by scholars and laypersons alike. What one believes about the age of the earth goes a long way in determining world views. The Bible is explicit that the earth is young, but many people feel that science has proved our planet is more than four billion year old. Thousands...Not Billions provides a compelling challenge to Darwinian evolution.

Genres: Science, Creation Science, Religion, Christian, Nonfiction, Evolution

190 pages, Paperback

First published September 1, 2005

Reviews

[Michael K. · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this to be an excellent book, a little tough to read, at times due to the depth of the science; however, it was a real eye opener with respect to the assumptions made within the science itself in order to determine the age of the earth. The age of the earth is paramount within the confines of "science" in order for the Theory of Evolution to be valid...there is a need...necessity for there to be Billions of years. Why? Because the mind cannot fathom such a large and vast number, even though it is heard and often times accepted. It seems as though the age of the earth back in the 1770-1790s was proposed to be 70,000 years old and that age has grown to 4.6-4.7 Billion years today. hmmmmmmmm... This is an excellent book to read if you want to better understand the different methods used to measure the age of the earth. Well worth your time to read this one!

[David Barker · Rating 4 out of 5]

Although I don't agree with everything written in the book (and that can be said of nearly every book I've read), it contains some very good information. The discussion about the possibility of radioactive decay rates not being uniform over time is intriguing. After all, what causes radioactive decay? It is said to be spontaneous. What does that mean? "Just happens," or as Curie suggested: from an unknown cause? I really like a statement on p. 143: "The questioning of radioisotope dating and the geologic time scale neither stifles inquiry nor hinders scientific progress. Instead, it serves the healthy purpose of uncovering assumptions and bias."

[Scott · Rating 1 out of 5]

As I expected, this book is poorly disguised pseudoscience. The first part that I read was the references: Only 16 references for a work of such potentially revolutionary import, with just four of these from recognized peer-reviewed scientific journals, and none of the article authors were authors of the chapters in this book. Red Flag. That provided a good indicator of where this book was going to go. But each chapter did provide some introductory scientific background (physics/chemistry/geology as relevant) and this was informative and generally well-written (made understandable for the non-specialist). Be not deceived, however.

"Thousands Not Billions" (TnB) went to great lengths to highlight discordance among radiodating methods and results, and other radiodating pitfalls. This may indeed be the case but that in and of itself is not the same as saying that because there are discrepancies, the universe is 6,000 years old! TnB made everything all nice and tidy by way of pushing a completely unsubstantiated theory called "Accelerated Nuclear Decay" which apparently took place during the first two days of creation and during the Flood (and ultimately explains the title of this book). A quote (my emphasis): "These results *imply* that accelerated decay *likely* persisted throughout the year of the Flood." Then TnB played the apologist-pot calling the kettle black by stating: "The questioning of radioisotope dating and the geologic timescale neither stifles inquiry nor hinders scientific progress. Instead it serves the healthy purpose of uncovering *assumptions* and *bias*." (My emphasis to highlight their hypocrisy in hammering the 6,000 year square peg of young earth age dogma-as-science into the round hole of legitimate geologic dating inquiry).

Then things got really bizarre. Proposing "string theory" as a possible explanation for accelerated decay! Well, if you ask me, this is "grasping at ... strings". Then there is this quote about the danger of accelerated decay to life: "There is the obvious issue of protecting the precious animal and human life on board [Noah's:] ark. The water barrier between the ark and the earth's rock layers could have played a major role *along with* divine intervention" (my emphasis). TnB then stating the obvious as an afterthought, "In fact, most Biblical miracles require a temporary suspension of basic natural laws." Why is it then necessary to try and convince the reader that natural laws are valid when they support young earth theory, but that God needed to suspend them for the week of creation and the Flood (due to too high radiation levels!)? This is farce! If that was the case then they are not laws at all. And why would God need them ... sometimes? In fact, why don't the authors just drop the pretense of science altogether if it is not constant and not needed? The authors are using science in a way that undermines science; it doesn't ring true or righteous.

The last chapter before the conclusion convinced me that OK, there is both poetry and narrative in the Bible (Well duh). It did not make me believe that by virtue of being narrative (as determined through a convoluted statistical analysis of Hebrew verb type), narrative is necessarily always literal and never allegorical. Besides failing because it makes a mockery of the scientific method, TnB also fails to convince because its authors come across as apologists not objective scientists.

[Taveri · Rating 2 out of 5]

"Thousands Not Billions: Challenging an Icon of Evolution: Questioning the Age of the Earth" gives a review radioactive isotopic decay and provides reasons scientific measurements are off > the main "explanation" given is that rates of radioactive decay may have varied in the past (ie was faster/greater) thus generated different isotope ratios sooner.  An example of The Half Life of Rhenium 187 given as 42 billion years drops to 33 years if its electrons are stripped away [showing stabilty of nuclei is dependent on its electrons].

There is also an interesting chapter on the grammar of Hebrew supporting a contemporary narrative of creation.  It was written in something called Waw-Perfect indicating written as it happened.

[Kevin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great book if you are familiar with isotopes and the science of carbon dating a little. If so then you will like this, very informative in depth look at how false the process is and why it has been allowed to go on so long uncontested. It breaks down the nuclear half-lifes of C-12 and C-14 ( Carbon Atoms ) and how they are used to date some of the most important things in life....like the true age of the earth. Evolutionists will hate it because it completely disproves their evolution nonsense in numerous ways and in many ways coincides with biblical events. All in all an in depth educational advanced book.

[Brenton · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book could have been called RATE for Dummies. It's a non-techinical distillation of the work of the Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) project, conducted over eight years by several PhD Young Earth Creationists. The two volume work the RATE group produced is nearly inscrutable to all but nerd scientists. Hence, Don DeYoung has translated the ideas for the rest of us. The star light and time problem is not treated.

[Todd Miles · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book raises critical questions about the assumption that grounds scientific inquiry of an old earth. Though the case for a young earth is not made, there are significant questions raised, based upon strong scientific data, that might undermine Old Earth dating.

[Thequaminator · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mostly chemistry, nuclear radiation, and geology above my head.
Very good premise, but did not deliver very well.
Presented some good and new geological research for supporting a young earth. The last chapter was also very good in its analysis that Genesis 1 is not poetry but narrative.

Parts in the middle were dry and data heavy. And even seemed to raise more questions than answers. I think that one of the hardest questions was that varying and accelerated nuclear half life must be credited for a young earth but then the amount of heat and radiation would have killed off everything on earth.
Hopefully young earth scientists will continue to push this research forward and then present it in clearer and more accessible ways.

[Erika Nederveld · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book is about radiometric dating methods. It is much lighter reading than other books out there on the topic and is suitable for the normal person who has no prior knowledge on the topic.

This summarized the results of experiments conducted by the RATE group which are critical to understanding what the problems are with the radiometric dating method.

[Brad · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've read a ton of Creationist books and many times I have read the same thing over. This book presents tons of evidence for a young earth that I had never heard of! I'm not sure there was anything in this book that I had read about anywhere else. A must for even avid young earth believers.

[Danny Barulli · Rating 4 out of 5]

DeYoung wrote this for Young Earth Creationists who may have an interest in the scientific apologetic for a 6000-year-old earth. He introduces the RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) team that will provide research and experimentation for a young earth.

[Wade Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Technical, but still very readable and with thoughtful summaries of experiments that demonstrate the breadth of evidence for God’s creation of the earth approximately 6,000 years ago.

[Rodney Harvill · Rating 4 out of 5]

Decades ago, some opponents of evolution argued that God had placed the fossils in the ground to test us. Contrary to contemporary misrepresentations used to slander creationists as unsophisticated, modern creation scientists (yes, scientists!) accept that fossils are the remains of actual living creatures, arguing that most of them were buried in Noah’s flood recorded in Genesis. This book focuses not on the biological evolution debate centered around fossils of animals, but rather on the geological evolution debate and looks at a different set of fossils: evidence of past radioactive decay such as decay daughter isotopes, radiohalos and fission tracks. In the late 1990s and early 2000s, a group of creation scientists did an extensive study called RATE, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, publishing a variety of scientific papers and two large technical reports. This book is a high-level summary written to be understood by non-scientists that also answers some objections to the RATE conclusions.

According to traditional radioisotope dating, the earth is 4.5 billion years old; in contrast, the traditional interpretation of Genesis yields about 6,000 years of age. This presents a bit of a dilemma with a number of possible resolutions:

1. God created the present radioisotope inventories, radiohalos, fission tracks, etc. to produce an appearance of age.
2. The existing radioisotope inventories reflect 4.5 billion years of radioactive decay at current decay rates, but there were periods of time in the past when decay rates were higher, accounting for the present inventory.
3. The Genesis creation account was not meant to be taken literally, rather to communicate truths about God being responsible for creation without reflecting exactly what He did.

The RATE study considered the first option but rejected it due to the strong evidence of radioactive decay. It also engaged a Hebrew scholar to critically evaluate the third option. Because the writing style and verb usage so decisively correlated with narrative history in the Old Testament rather than with poetry in the Old Testament, the RATE team likewise rejected it, as well, leaving option 2. With the exception of a chapter summarizing the Hebrew linguistic study, the bulk of the book is focused on how the RATE study dealt with option 2.

Early on, the book explains the radioactive dating process and its underlying assumptions:

1. The initial conditions (as in, when the rock was formed) of the sample are known accurately.
2. We can tell whether the rock being sampled has exchanged atoms with the surroundings during its history.
3. The half-lives of the isotopes under consideration have remained constant since the rock was formed.

A method known as isochrons is used to validate the first two assumptions for any given radioactive dating method. The method seems a bit like voodoo to me, but it appears to focus on ratios of different radioisotope concentrations, the ratios expected when the rock was formed and the current ratios based on decay rates. If they are off relative to each other, the initial conditions might not have been as expected, or radiosotopes may have been transported into or out of the rock during its history, compromising the ability to properly date the rock.

After this explanation of radioactive decay for the benefit of the average reader, the book turns to evidence of a young earth. One method of dating organic materials is carbon-14. When a plant or animal is alive, its carbon-14 inventory is in equilibrium with the environment as a result of biological processes such as eating and breathing. Once it dies, the processes causing this equilibrium stop, and the carbon-14 inventory starts a slow reduction due to radioactive decay. Assuming that the equilibrium carbon-14 concentration in the environment has remained constant (based on a baseline date of 1950, prior to large-scale nuclear weapons testing, which has affected the carbon-14 inventory in the environment), the ratio of the carbon-14 in the sample to that in the environment can be used to identify how long ago the plant or animal died. Because carbon-14 would decay away to negligible levels within 100,000 years, this dating method is valid only for samples below that age. The RATE team did radiocarbon dating of coal dated between 34 and 311 million years of age by traditional dating, diamonds (assumed to be millions or even billions of years old) and found detectable levels of carbon-14, all within an order of magnitude of each other, suggesting a much younger age than millions of years. The book provides an analysis of the results and answers alternative explanations by proponents of the traditional chronology.

Zircons, crystalline ZrSiO4, are often found in granite along with the main mineral component: quartz, feldspar and biotite. Because uranium and thorium are chemically similar to zirconium, they sometimes replace zirconium at various points in the crystal matrix and then decay to lead via decay chains that include several alpha decays, as well as beta decays. When a nucleus undergoes alpha decay, it emits an alpha particle, a helium nucleus. In larger zircons, the alpha particle doesn’t have sufficient energy to propel itself out of the zircon. Afterwards, it can diffuse out of the zircon and surrounding rock. The RATE team sampled some zircons from borehole rock dated to 1.5 billion years based on lead-lead dating. More than half of the helium from radioactive decay in the zircons was still in the zircons and most of the remainder that had diffused out was still in the surrounding biotite. This discovery prompted the RATE temp to research helium diffusivity in zircon crystals and in biotite. Based on diffusivity results and the helium concentrations still in the zircons and surrounding minerals, statistical analysis yielded an estimated age for the zircons of 6,000 ± 2,000 years, a much shorter time than the 1.5 billion year lead-lead age. If the rocks were 1.5 billion years old, the helium should not still be there. As with the carbon-14 discussion, the book answers alternative explanations for the helium retention.

The chapter describing radiohalo research is quite interesting. As discussed above, uranium and thorium atoms in the crystal structure of zircons decay via a decay chain of alpha and beta decay events. The energy level of the alpha particle depends on the radioisotope in the decay chain that is decaying. As mentioned above, the alpha particle cannot propel itself out of a large zircon, but it can propel itself out of smaller zircons into the surrounding biotite. Since even a small zircon will have many decay events over its lifespan, alpha particles will be emitted in all directions. As they pass through the crystal structure of both the zircon and the biotite, the alpha particles lose energy by colliding with atoms, knocking them out of position. If there are sufficient such events, the result is a discoloration known as a radiohalo, the radius of which is a function of the energy level of the alpha particles. Alpha particles emitted with higher energy travel farther, producing larger radiohalos. If the radionuclides in a small zircon remain in place, the result is a radiohalo consisting of concentric rings for the different energy levels of the different alpha decays in the decay chain. Radiohalos in rocks from different geologic eras were studied. The flood geology paradigm of the creation scientists considers Precambrian rock to be pre-flood and most of the subsequent rock layers to have been deposited during the flood. The rocks with the highest concentrations of radiohalos were not pre-flood rocks, as might be expected based on age, but the younger rocks of the flood layers. This is potential evidence for shortened half-lives during the flood. One mystery identified in these studies is the existence of orphan radiohalos, in which the concentric rings associated with alpha decays early in the decay chain are missing. The book discusses various possible explanations, including liquid transport of radioisotopes from one location to another between decay events and the timing of magma cooling.

Aside from the decay chains discussed above, uranium atoms in zircons can also decay by spontaneous fission. When this happens, the fission products, two nuclei, each having around half the mass of the original uranium nucleus, are propelled outward with a substantial amount of kinetic energy, leaving a trail of damage to the crystal structure. Because spontaneous fission has its own half-life, the concentration of the fission tracks in a sample is an indication of the age of the rock. It appears that the RATE team used fission track dating to validate the amount of radioactive decay determined by helium retention/diffusion and radiohalos discussed above. There were few inconsistencies between fission track studies and the above-mentioned studies. If crystalline rocks containing such radiation damage as fission tracks and radiohalos are heated above a certain temperature, they will anneal, a process in which the crystalline structure repairs itself and erases the radiation damage, a process that makes the rock look “younger” from the standpoint of radiation damage.

There are several different radioactive dating methods suitable for geologic strata that use different decay chains. The RATE team did a test of consistency between different methods by having rock samples from different parts of the world dated by different methods and comparing the results. The methods tested in this manner included potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, lead-lead and samarium neodymium. Sometimes the different methods yielded results consistent among themselves and with the published ages of the rock strata under consideration. However, there were several instances where the different methods yielded wildly different ages inconsistent with each other and with published dates. The most interesting instance of this was andesite samples from Mount Ngauruhoe in New Zealand, which most recently erupted in the 20th century (1949, 1954 and 1975). In other words, the samples were from lava flows less than 100 years old. Ages measured by Rb-SR, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb methods ranged from 3.5 million years to 3.908 billion years years for rocks only a few decades old. This was by no means the only age discrepancy but was the most dramatic. The book discusses a number of theories as to the nature and origin of these discrepancies, including inheritance of radioisotopic inventory from source material (initial conditions), mixing between the magma and surrounding crustal rocks (exchange with surroundings) and non-constant half-lives over geologic history. In short, these results challenge all three underlying assumptions of the radioactive dating process.

Finally, the book explores the concept of accelerated radioactive decay. This section discusses the mechanism of alpha decay via quantum mechanical tunneling and acknowledges that the how and why of accelerated radioactive decay is the subject of ongoing research. The lack of a mechanism for accelerated decay is not the only weakness. Accelerated decay would produce lethal levels of radiation, impacting when it could occur without affecting life. The RATE team posits that it would be limited to the first two days the creation week, before the creation of life, and the flood year. Furthermore, there is the problem of the immense levels of heat generation from the accelerated decay. How does the heat dissipate out of the rocks fast enough to keep the rock temperature below the annealing temperature at which radiation damage to the crystalline structure is erased? This is the question that troubles me the most. The RATE team has proposed cosmological cooling via cosmological inflation as a possible mechanism. This is a tantalizing idea in that Noah and his family would have walked off the ark to see an apparent new earth as well as new heavens. Even so, it is not clear to me how this cooling mechanism would get the heat out of the rocks fast enough to keep their temperature low enough. I hope to see more research in this area.

While there remain holes in the creationist paradigm, the work of the RATE team has also poked some holes in the ruling old earth paradigm. Personally, I would prefer to see more research in certain areas of the paradigm, I am very much aware that the creationist paradigm is a minority view. Resource limitations necessarily impede progress. In addition, there have been other obstacles. For example, Andrew Snelling, one of the RATE researchers whose work is summarized in part of this book, had difficulty getting permission to perform rock samples in the Grand Canyon for subsequent research (Rock samples from the Grand Canyon had been used in some of the RATE research.), and had to resort to a lawsuit to get permission to get the samples. I don’t what his research plan was, but this delayed it by four years, from 2013 to 2017.

For the record, I am a nuclear engineer by profession but have a lot more experience with heat transfer and fluid flow analysis than with radiation analysis. My geology background is limited to secondary education. If anything, this book has inspired me to read up further on geology and radioactive dating to better evaluate its claims. Yes, I am a creationist, but have been reading works by both creationist and non-creationist scientists and will continue to do so.

[Peter]

Godawful book, deluded fundamentalism

Fabulous example of otherwise intelligent people having their brains reduced to mush due to indoctrination . Seriously stupid . PhDs using big words to mislead and deceive others . " the world is about 6,000 years old "? Right, and Bambi was a documentary

[Rodger Carty · Rating 5 out of 5]

The chapter on the grammatical analysis of the Creation account geeked me out! (That's very hard to do.)

[Dan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Informative and detailed, but perhaps a bit complex for some.

[Josh Perez · Rating 4 out of 5]

Conventional methods for dating rocks are not as straightforward and obvious as is commonly advertised. This pillar in the stronghold of evolutionary thought collapses under the weight of its unsubstantiated assumptions. This book attempts to summarize the research of a group of scientists who studied the age of the earth in connection to commonly used dating methods. The result is a dry and technical overview of some of their findings. For me, the greatest value was found in the summary chapter in the end of the book where the highlights were overviewed. My grasp of the material is tenuous at best when it comes down to the technicalities of this issue. Other resources have supplemented my knowledge and I have an understanding of the basics but not much beyond. But even that basic understanding has been helpful in seeing through the smokescreen of the dating methods used to confidently assert a millions-year-old earth.

[Marcy Kennedy · Rating 4 out of 5]

My only complaint is that I wish this was more "readable." I know that it's supposed to be the layperson version of the technical reports produced by this team, but it was still very technical for someone not in that field (and that's coming from someone with a master's degree in a different discipline). If this had been made a little more accessible for the average person, I would have given it 5 stars.

[Daniel · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's unfortunate that young earth science gets so little funding. This book does an admirable job of introducing questions, but provides few answers. That disconnect is directly attributable to the fact that they do the research on their own time. I'd like to read more. The text is well written, approachable, and while I had to read multiple passages multiple times I wasn't overwhelmed by the science. No degree required.

[Cevlar · Rating 4 out of 5]

Strong commentary on many of the discrepancies within geological and biological dating. Although many may see it as being biased, the unique perspective on scientific analysis is a breath of fresh air in a community that vilifies biblical interpretation. Overall, for those with a mind for scientific papers/critiques, whether Christian or not, this book is an excellent read.

[Ben Garrard · Rating 4 out of 5]

Interesting read - really exposed how little I know about different methods of dating rocks and organic matter. A few over-arching principals/ themes to note:

1. There are 3 important assumptions made in radioisotope dating:
- that the initial conditions of rock samples can be accurately determined - "known initial conditions for the rock" (discordant isochron samples and ancient dates produced for very recent volcanic rock of known age make this assumption unwise.)
- that the open or closed nature of rock samples can be determined and quantified - "a closed system" (frequent indications of the mixing of mantle and crustal isotopes in rock samples makes this an unsafe assumption)
- that nuclear half-lives have remained constant throughout history - "constant rate of nuclear decay" (the presence of unexpected helium found in supposedly ancient zircons counters this assumption, as does trends in dating results for alpha and beta decays indicating rates have not remained constant)

2. The RATE study observed that an enormous amount of nuclear decay has taken place in the past (seen in accumulated daughter decay products, and vast numbers of defects in crystalline rock including radiohalos and fission tracks) If nuclear decay rates are uniform, this would be billions of years worth of decay. However given evidence which suggests a much younger Earth, and as it is assumed the Earth wasn't created with the appearance of age, the logical conclusion is that nuclear rates of decay have varied greatly in the past and have not always been uniform and consistent with the nuclear half-life values measured today.

3. Carbon-14 atoms and traces show up where they shouldn't if the Earth is billions of years old.
Small quantities of C-14 are found in 'ancient' samples worldwide including in fossils, carbonate rocks, coal samples and diamonds. If these samples are ancient (beyond the 5,730 year half-life of carbon-14) what is the explanation for the presence of traces of carbon?

4. High concentrations of helium still present in zircon crystals taken from deep underground (dated to 1.5 billion years old) indicate a much younger age for the zircon samples. The presence of helium in zircons is a serious challenge to the concept of deep time and also presents evidence of accelerated nuclear decay in the past.

5. Radiohalos abundant in granites formed during the flood indicate large scale acceleration of nuclear decay during the year-long flood event.

6. In widespread largescale testing of samples of multiple isotopes, isochrons sometimes showed concordance and agreement in age, but many examples showed disagreement - including from samples found within 30cm of each other - a reasonable conclusion is that radioisotope data for rocks provide a wealth of information about their relative ages, and possible interactions with their environment, however, an absolute age cannot be accurately determined.

7. Fission tracks and radiohalos provide a visible microscopic record of nuclear decay in crystalline solids. A variation of a few hundred degrees is sufficient to erase the fission tracks and radiohalos (defects) - their ongoing visibility suggests not a lot of time has passed since their formation, as it is unlikely they would remain over vast ages/billions of years without volcanic and tectonic activity erasing them.

8. It is statistically indefensible to interpret Genesis 1:1-2:3 as poetry or metaphor based on analysis and logistic regression applied to the ratio of preterites to total finite verbs in a range of passages. Gen. 1:1-2:3 is statistically classified as narrative with a probability of 0.9999 (with 1 being certainty).

9. Accelerated decay rates present a challenge for RATE scientists in terms of the amount of heat energy that would have been given off. What prevented the Earth from melting completely during a rapid decay event of such proportions (billions of years worth of decay in a few years)? Where did this heat energy go and how did humans survive it if it occurred during and immediately after the flood? Calculations show this much decay of uranium and thorium would raise rock temperature as high as 22,000 degrees celsius (nearly 4x hotter than surface of the sun).

First printed 2005.

[Blake · Rating 3 out of 5]

First a confession: I am not scientific minded. Sciences have never been my forte. In fact, and you can verify this by consulting Kenny KCal Kinzer (science teacher from high school) and Mrs. DeFrance (chemistry teacher in high school) and possibly even Mr. Fred Seybert (biology teacher and basketball coach), I had an incredible ability to fail (or almost fail) anything "science." I've changed a lot since those days of yesteryear but when reading through this book, "Thousands, Not Billions," I admittedly have to say that most of it was, well, over my head. The parts I did understand, howevere, were very fascinating and thought provoking.

As I was reading, I was reminded of the fact that EVERY person has a worldview. One's worldview will determine how he views things like geology, creation, where this all came from, age of the earth, etc. The atheistic evolutionist has a worldview that directs his study of geology. The theistic evolutionist likewise has a worldview that directs his study of geology. And, to be sure, the young earth, creationist (which I am fully on board with) also has a worldview that directs his study of geology. One's worldview will press one to approach all geological studies, fully persuaded that his view is correct and all studies within the scientific field will be seen to support the individual's particular worldview. So it is that with Deyoung and his associates, their worldview clearly comes out within the pages of the book. What the author and his partners are attempting to answer are questions such as: 1) Why do the conventional methods for the dating of rocks differ so radically? 2) What does the carbon-14 found in diamonds tell us about the age of the earth? 3) Was there what is called, "accelerated nuclear decay" in earth's history? and 4) Are the creation account and flood genuine, actual historic events? Those were just four, of many, questions that were considered within the pages of the book. The book provides a report from a team of scientists who spent around 8 years studying various rocks, diamonds, etc. developing thoughts on how what they discovered can actually make a legitimate argument for a young earth. I appreciated the portions that I understood. I also appreciated the humility in which the author approached the subject, demonstrating how true scientists should be able to study, evaluate, make proposals, run more studies and tests, and sharpen one another, without all of the vitriole that normally accompanies the discussion about the age of the earth.

If one is scientific minded and wants to read some material that will give fodder to much thought and reasonable discussion about the age of the earth, this book would be a resource that would serve him/her well. I highly recommend it for the right audience.

[Albert · Rating 4 out of 5]

I teach advanced chemistry at the high school level and the main point stressed to my students as scientifically sound the mathematics of radioisotopic decay may be, many assumptions are made in calculating the final data. For example, the age of dead people compare to 100 year old skeletons will be different because of the c-12/c-14 ratio. Our consumption of oil (buried dinosaur fossils) are C-12 rich. The amount of CO2 produce in the atmosphere increases as we consume more fossil fuels. So the ratio changes causing inaccurate dating. This book is circumspect and clearly produces an understanding of the assumptions involved in radiometric dating. I heartily recommend this book if not for total acceptance but as a meaningful counter argument. If you want to debate old age vs. young age it serves the debater best to know both sides of the coin.

[Stan · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book focuses on perceived flaws in current methods of aging the earth. It is beyond my geologic knowledge to determine the truth or falsehood of his arguments, but I would say that the author, a physics professor, presents his case in a reasoned, logical manner (at least until the last chapter, when he brings in a biblical scholar to statistically prove that Genesis is a factual recounting of events rather than poetry or metaphor). Still I found his argument ultimately unconvincing, trying too hard to make available evidence fit into a preconceived 6000-year-old earth view, to the point of pulling out the remarkable suggestion that nuclear decay may have been accelerated in the early days of the earth, resulting in the appearance of greater age.

[Spencer · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very interesting. The authors make some great scientific points but then in their conclusion they make some points based on their assumptive opinions that puts them in a corner and closes off their otherwise open discussion. Many times this book was written above the layman and was difficult to follow even though this was the simplified version of their studies for the layman. Anyway, its a worthy read for anyone who has ever been interested in the age of the earth and religion.

[Kim]

Having a hard time with this one as my brain explodes after one page of reading. Requires a degree in physics to fully comprehend. Incredibly scientific, probably not for the lay person. But I'll keep trying and let you know.

[L.S. · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an amazing book! It presents great results and everything is done really well and science-based. I do not recommended though if you do not have some basic knowledge in nuclear geo-chronology.

[JoAnnette]

SO far truly captivating...

[Nate · Rating 2 out of 5]

Good info, but really pretty boring and technical. The Evolutionists are in a lot of trouble I think.

[Emily · Rating 3 out of 5]

Very deep, technical book.