I think it is reasonable to assume, however, that the 70 percent or so I did investigate are representative and that the methods I do not discuss are likewise meaningless.
The Bible is both a religious and historical work, but how much is myth and how much is history? Where do the people of Israel originally come from?
When and why was the Old Testament written, and by whom? Why were the historical accounts of the Bible written down?
This was an important breakthrough in scientific thought because it meant that the Earth’s history could be explained as the result of understandable, natural processes, rather than unknowable, supernatural, catastrophic evens.
Creationists, however, typically state or imply that the principle of uniformity, as used by scientists, means that the rates of natural processes are always constant.
I will show that all 49 of these ages are invalid and that most are probably best described as silly.
I do not discuss the remaining ages listed in Table 10 either because they are not within my area of expertise or because I simply did not have time to investigate them.
Their “evidence” consists of invalid criticisms of the legitimate scientific data, as discussed above, and of some calculations that supposedly show that the Earth is very young.
These calculations occur throughout the literature of creation “science” (e.g., 13, 77, 92, 116, 135), and they have been conveniently tabulated by Morris (93, 95) and Morris and Parker (97) (Table 10).
The origin of all things by direct creation — already necessitated by many other scientific considerations — is therefore also indicated by chronometric data. Nearly all these methods have been aired in the scientific literature and found to be so worthless that scientists do not use them for determining the age of the Earth.