Dating

Paleomagnetic measurements in archaeological material belonging to the time of the Babylonian destruction of Jerusalem may well lead to accurately calibrating carbon-14 dating

Claimed dates for the Neolithic site Göbekli Tepe predate the Bible’s date of creation, and the Lost City of Dwarka supposedly predates the Flood—how should creationists respond?

How easy it seems to simply adjust an age that does not fit the evolutionary long-age narrative. Sometimes, there are no qualms about changing a ‘date’ by a billion years!

CMI’s Dr Jim Mason responds to Dr Luke Barnes’ Premier Christianity magazine article, ‘Why I’m no longer a young-earth creationist’.

‘Earliest life’ fossils of Bicellum brasieri were buried by Noah’s Flood and not one billion years ago.

Long-age geologists will not accept a radiometric date unless it matches their pre-existing expectations.

If radiometric dating is objective science then why do researchers disagree so widely over the results?

Using the same philosophy (uniformitarianism) employed by evolutionists, the oceans fail to live up to old-earth expectations.

Radiohalos are the result of nuclear decay. They provide powerful evidence that the earth is young and radiometric dating is highly inaccurate.

Western belief in ‘deep time’ first appeared in 17th and 18th century France

The oldest of Egypts pyramids fit comfortably within biblical history and timescale as post-Flood and post-Babel monuments.

More evidence that fossils are better explained in the biblical timeframe

Does the evidence justify invoking this mechanism to preserve soft tissues for millions of years?

A CMI supporter writes in with a comment about the assumptions made behind the method of carbon 14 dating.

A new way of looking at your world.

Ways they make conflicting results tell the same story