Did early hominids use construction techniques more complex than we’ve heretofore presumed them capable of using? Or, do modern humans pre-date the place previously assigned to them on the evolutionary timeline? A sample of wood seems to suggest that one, or both, of those assumptions need refining. Or… would it be more scientific to consider that “scientific” dating methods are robbing us all, from mature researchers to elementary-aged school children, of our ability to use reasonable scrutiny when considering past events?

Once again, a specimen has been pushed into the limelight to herald the extensive age of the Earth, and to bolster the theory of human evolution. It’s been all over the news and has made the rounds on FB & other social media. This time, it’s wood that researchers suggest was used in constructing a complex structure. However, writes the investigators, the age of the wood surpasses the imagined age for modern humans. The ramifications are that either anatomically modern humans should be placed further back on the evolutionary timeline, or that our supposed non-human ancestors were smarter than the average ape.

Here’s one news article announcing the findings: https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/world-s-oldest-known-wooden-structure-pre-dates-our-species/ar-AA1h0lFw?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=cf8f55d68c3246b9a9450d38aeeb9272&ei=12

Here’s the actual published paper: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06557-9

So… What’s at issue, and where should we begin to look when evaluating the claims?

The very first thing to understand is that the age of the wood put forth by the team in their presentation was arrived at by a technique called thermoluminescence dating. More on that in a moment. For now, a quick word on so-called “scientific” dating methods.

Most “scientific” dating methods rely on some sort of ratio. When using radiometric dating methods, for instance, the ratio of parent-daughter pairs is measured in a sample, and then evaluated by looking at the present rates of change for the ratio.

If someone uses the potassium-argon method, for example, they’ll analyze their sample for the amounts of both elements (specifically, particular isotopes of those two elements), and then state those amounts as a ratio. Once they’ve arrived at the current ratio in the specimen, they’ll then consult a chart that lists the present rate at which potassium breaks down into argon. From all of that, they’ll state the assumed age of the specimen as suggested by the present ratio.

Simply put: If it takes X amount of years for this much of this isotope to decay into that much of that isotope, and “that” much is how much we’ve found in our specimen, then our rock must be X years old.

Such “scientific” dating methods, however, ignore some very important assumptions, and often lead to confusing and incompatible results, even from among the more “accurate” of such methods.

“The most reliable technique (‘mineral isochrons’) applied in a single rock sample to four different sets of radioactive elements and their daughters gives four quite different dates.  Being from a single rock, all the dates should be the same.  But the dates differ by far more than the measurement error, in several cases by up to a factor of two or three.”

A Christian Response to Radiometric Dating, Dr Tasman B. Walker, Creation Ministries International.
Retrieved 9/22/2023 from https://creation.com/images/pdfs/other/5292wiens_dating.pdf

For an excellent (and moderately technical) point-by-point evaluation of a popular and oft-cited paper that champions “scientific” dating methods, read the above-cited work by Dr. Tas Walker. It would be worth an hour of your time to investigate the more glaring issues associated with many of the dating techniques in use around the world today. Such techniques are presented to the public, and to nearly all levels of the American public education system, as absolute. In fact, such methods are notoriously poor sources for accurate information on the age of materials under study.

If you’ve decided to NOT spend the hour on Dr Walker’s article, then spend fewer than 120 seconds reading this one:

https://creation.com/flaws-in-dating-the-earth-as-ancient

You owe it to yourself, to your kids, and to your grandkids to understand at least the very basic flaws associated with such dating methods. And, we would all do well to keep in mind the often dubious results arrived at by these methods.

Dating methods don’t always rely directly on parent-daughter ratios. One method relies on the presumed gap in time since a certain material was exposed to heat (as in lava or something kiln-fired) or to sunlight. This method, the thermoluminescence dating method mentioned above, has well-established weaknesses that even old-Earth scientists acknowledge:

“The major source of error in establishing dates from thermoluminescence is a consequence of inaccurate measurements of the radiation acting on a specimen. The complex history of radioactive force on a sample can be difficult to estimate.”

Thermoluminescence Dating, Archaeologies of the Greek Past
Joukowsky Institute for Archaeology & the Ancient World
Brown University, Providence, RI
Retrieved 9/22/2023 from https://www.brown.edu/Departments/Joukowsky_Institute/courses/greekpast/4929.html

While thermoluminescence dating does not look at the breakdown of elements, is does ultimately rely on ratios. I would argue that saying the “complex history of radioactive force on a sample can be difficult to estimate” is another way of saying that dating methods relying on the measurement of ratios are subject to incorrect assumptions of, among other things:

1. The initial value of something found in the specimen;
2. The rate at which that “something” would increase or decrease in the specimen over time;
3. That nothing unknown has acted on the specimen that would alter the amount of that “something” within the specimen.

If the dating of specimens is dubious, then what do we make of the old Earth, and of the theory of evolution? Well, it becomes still more untenable to argue for such positions in light of highly questionable dates assigned to fossilized bones, rocks, and other specimens.

When “evidence” for an advance age of the Earth or for very old human ancestry is presented, we should subject the evidence to reasonable scrutiny. A problem left by the public education is that most of us have never, ever been exposed to what may be considered as reasonable scrutiny. The mere questioning of very old dates, or of the theory of evolution, is seen as heresy, not as something reasonable. However, oftentimes, when just a modicum of scrutiny is applied, the “facts” become nothing more than highly questionable assumptions begging for the application of the true tenets of operational and/or historic science.

Considering the particular “find” associated with the giddy news reports on earlier-than-expected use of complex construction techniques, we should evaluate very carefully how the researchers arrived at their presumptive age for the wood under examination. Is there another way, or are there other ways, that the results of their investigation can be explained? Instead of arguing perpetually in favor of poor sources of scientific information, would it be more reasonable to consider that the Earth isn’t as old as we’ve been told?

The Earth is, as the best source of history presents, a little over 6,000 years old. About 4,400 years ago the whole Earth was covered by water during a global catastrophe unimaginable to us in force and devastating in consequence to the Earth as it was then. Such a context for evaluating research papers provides better and more complete answers across a broad array of subjects from geology to paleontology to the present state of the human genome.

Bottom line: The people who built the wooden structure described in the paper under consideration did their work no more than 4,400 years ago, sometime after the global flood. And, you did not evolve. You were created by Almighty God in a miraculous act described in the historic book named Genesis.

God’s Peace, and happy reading!