Remember that this correction is based on measurable scientific data, not on any creationist preconceptions.
We need to consider two other effects: In any case, even the incorrect ‘uniform’ model has given, in many cases, serious embarrassment to evolutionists by giving ages which are much younger than those he expects in terms of his model of earth history.
So it was expected that most deposits such as coal, gas, petrified trees, etc. In fact, of 15,000 dates in the journal to 1968, only three were classed ‘un-dateable’—most were of the sort which should have been in this category. [Editor’s note: The graph below was reproduced from a sketch in the original magazine. The internet, and this site in particular, can be a powerful tool for reaching those who would never go to church.Imagine a tank with water flowing in at a certain rate, and flowing out again at the same rate (see diagram below). If you saw it for the first time, you wouldn’t be able to work out how old it was—how long it had been since it was ‘switched on’.was entering the system some 12-20% faster than it was leaving.In other words, going into the past, we should reach a period of time in which there is a sharp reduction in the number of specimens compared to the period just older than that, and as we went forward in time, we would expect a gradual buildup, as plant and animal populations recovered their numbers. Using the 15,000 published dates previously mentioned after adjusting them as described, he grouped them into 500 year ‘blocks’ and found a dramatic drop-off about 5,000 years ago, with a worldwide distribution (, Ed. C) dating usually want to know about the radiometric dating methods that are claimed to give millions and billions of years—carbon dating can only give thousands of years.by Creation-Science Research Center) A question which could be asked after all this is: does radio-carbon, adjusted to fit the ‘non-uniform’ model, give any independent evidence of a worldwide catastrophe such as the Flood?