USING GROK 4 TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON DINOSAURS AND RADIOMETRIC DATING

Posted on by

Calvin Smith of Answers in Genesis , Canada uses strict math, logic, and science to show Grok (Elon Musk’s AI) that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans — Grok 4 admitted it. But then it defaulted right back to the evolutionary story… Why, because that is what is taught by our schools and universities that teach evolution as fact when in fact it is a heavily flawed theory. When asked the right questions it was impressive in delivering the right answers.

Note that this interaction with Grok 4 is intended to be for educational purposes only. Although Grok 4 has been touted by its founder Elon Musk as the most sophisticated AI currently on the planet (with better comprehension than most PhDs in all fields simultaneously), Answers in Genesis (AIG) is not claiming Grok 4 will always provide accurate information or represent current scientific arguments as human experts perhaps would. For specific, current information in any area, AIG suggest you look up peer reviewed articles from reputable journals. However, AIG welcomes people apply the same parameters (strict logic, mathematical probability and observational science) and ask Grok 4 the same questions they have to see the results for themselves, understanding that Grok 4 pulls data from a wide range of sources and can make accurate conclusions based on current scientific data in many circumstances. For a better understanding of AiG’s stance on the use of AIs (published prior to Grok 4’s release), please read the article What Only People Can Do: The Limits of Large Language Models, How to navigate a dangerous new technology by Harry F. Sanders, III and Lita Sanders on July 8, 2025, available on the Answers in Genesis website.

MORE EVIDENCE FOR A YOUNG EARTH

Posted on by

In 1980, Mount St. Helens (in Washington State, USA) erupted, blasting the top and side off the mountain. Then, as volcanoes do, it began to rebuild. In 1992, samples of new volcanic rock—KNOWN to be only about 10 years old—were dated using standard radiometric dating techniques (3 samples from the same rock, 350,000 years, 900,000 years, and 2,800,000 years). The results were eye-opening. Radiometric dating is not all it’s cracked up to be! In fact, it’s fair to ask: “Can radiometric dates be trusted at all?” Join geologist Dr Tas Walker for a discussion of the Mount St. Helens eruption and its aftermath, the fundamental flaws in radiometric dating methods, and the relevance of the age of the earth to people’s view of the world.

TIMESTAMPS ⌛ 00:00 Teaser 00:40 Introduction: What’s the deal with Mount St. Helens? 02:33 Dating rocks from Mount St. Helens 04:34 Assumptions underlie radiometric dating 05:57 Three samples, three dates: 350,000 – 2.8 million years 07:36 Story-telling accompanies radiometric dating 11:10 How can we get ACCURATE dates? 12:29 How were the Mount St. Helens dates received? Handling objections 17:05 Carbon dating gives good evidence for a YOUNG earth! 18:37 The only way to be sure of the age of something 19:58 Different kinds of radiometric dating 21:19 Radiometric dating seems so SCIENTIFIC – How can it not be right? 23:00 What to do when the dates don’t fit the expectations 27:56 Is it okay to publish dates/perspectives that don’t match existing expectations? 31:51 The age of the earth is a critical part of people’s worldview 33:38 So, what do long-age geologists think of Mount St. Helens? 35:55 Other lessons from Mount St. Helens: 36:09 → Geologic layers can be deposited rapidly 36:59 → Erosion can happen rapidly 38:02 Geologists are now more accepting of catastrophism, but won’t let go of long ages 39:17 In conclusion: The age of the earth matters to both the biblical and the naturalistic worldviews

AGE OF THE EARTH

Posted on by

This is such an important topic as a Cosmos that is billions of years old undermines the authority of God’s Word. For me now, fulfilled prophecy, just of Jesus first coming to earth is sufficient proof of the inerrancy of the Scriptures. Nevertheless, I did pharmacy at Sydney University and evolution was the stumbling block for me to doubt the Scriptures. It was not until the age of 46 that I attended a Creation Ministries weekend conference that I realised that evolution does not explain the origin of you and me and the Cosmos. I was General Manager of Abbott Laboratories Hospital Products Division at the time and the only thing that got me along to the conference was Professor John Rendle-Short who at the time was Foundation Professor and Head of the Department of Child Health at the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia. was on the program. He was also Chairman of Creation Ministries. I knew Prof. Rendle-Short as he was doing work for the Paediatric Division of Abbott Laboratories. I admired the man and if he was talking about creation versus evolution I wanted to hear what he had to say. Well! I came away from that conference annoyed with myself and our educational establishment for believing such nonsense. There is no scientific plausible mechanism that can explain how we go from “goo to you”. Natural selection only works with what is already there it does not create anything new and mutations all go in the wrong direction they lose information. They do not generate complex new information that is required for the functioning of anything, let alone a human brain that can create all of the technology we have today.

Whilst there are billions of dead things buried catastrophically all over the world, because the world had excepted Lyle’s and Darwin’s slow gradual change (uniformitarianism) and evolution which need billions of years, the worldwide flood of Noah’s day had been put into the myths and fables bin.

What about today with all the technology that we have is the Earth really 4.5 billion years old? How can we measure age with certainty? What about radiometric dating methods—don’t they prove millions and billions of years? Does the age of the Earth even matter? Dr Mark Harwood discusses these topics and more, focusing especially on why an old Earth sits in conflict with the Bible, while also providing evidence for a younger age of the Earth.

Go to http://www.creation.com/age for 101 documents of evidence for a young earth


⏳ TIMESTAMPS ⌛ 0:00 Introduction 0:48 Mark’s story: How origins affected his faith (An old Earth undermines the Gospel narrative) 11:11 How do we determine the age of something? (You can’t measure age!) 13:32 The dripping tap example (Dating methods rely on assumptions!) 16:17 Radiometric dates aren’t definitive – assumptions rule 19:51 The importance of witness testimony 23:36 The importance of worldview / starting assumptions 26:24 So, how old is the Earth? 28:58 Evidence from radiometric dating / rocks 36:04 Evidence from sedimentation / erosion 37:41 Evidence from our solar system 40:09 Evidence from Earth’s population 41:43 Evidence from carbon-14 in fossils 43:28 Summary: You can’t measure age! (Everything depends on your assumptions!) 46:29 An old Earth calls God’s character into question 48:47 An old Earth calls the inerrancy of Scripture into question 50:38 Conclusion: Three reasons the age of the Earth matters to a Christian

WHY RADIOMETRIC DATING GIVES AGES OF MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS

Posted on by

A young age for ‘ancient’ granites

When physicist Dr Russell Humphreys was still at Sandia National Laboratories (he now works full-time for the Institute for Creation Research), he and Dr John Baumgardner (still with Los Alamos National Laboratory) were both convinced that they knew the direction in which to look for a definitive answer to the puzzle of why radiometric dating consistently gives ages of millions and billions of years.

picture – Linear accelerator used in radiometric dating.

Others had tried to find an answer in geological processes—e.g. the pattern was caused by the way the magma was emplaced or how it crystallized. This is indeed the answer in some cases.2,3 But Drs Humphreys and Baumgardner realized that in other cases there were many independent lines of evidence that suggested that huge amounts of radioactive decay had indeed taken place. (These include the variety of elements used in ‘standard’ radioisotope dating, mature uranium radiohalos and fission track dating.) It would be hard to imagine that geologic processes alone could explain all these. Rather, there was likely to be an answer that concerned the nuclear decay processes themselves.

From the eyewitness testimony of God’s Word, the billions of years that such vast amounts of radioactive processes would normally suggest had not taken place. So it was clear that the assumption of a constant, slow decay process was wrong. There must have been speeded-up decay, perhaps in a huge burst associated with Creation Week and/or a separate burst at the time of the Flood.

There is now powerful confirmatory evidence that at least one episode of drastically accelerated decay has indeed been the case, building on the work of Dr Robert Gentry on helium retention in zircons. The landmark RATE paper,4 though technical, can be summarized as follows:

  • When uranium decays to lead, a by-product of this process is the formation of helium, a very light, inert gas, which readily escapes from rock.
  • Certain crystals called zircons, obtained from drilling into very deep granites, contain uranium which has partly decayed into lead.
  • By measuring the amount of uranium and ‘radiogenic lead’ in these crystals, one can calculate that, if the decay rate has been constant, about 1.5 billion years must have passed. (This is consistent with the geologic ‘age’ assigned to the granites in which these zircons are found.)
  • However, there is a significant proportion of helium from that ‘1.5 billion years of decay’ still inside the zircons. This is, at first glance, surprising for long-agers, because of the ease with which one would expect helium (with its tiny, light, unreactive atoms) to escape from the spaces within the crystal structure. There should surely be hardly any left, because with such a slow buildup, it should be seeping out continually and not accumulating.
  • Drawing any conclusions from the above depends, of course, on actually measuring the rate at which helium leaks out of zircons. This is what one of the RATE papers reports on. The samples were sent (without any hint that it was a creationist project) to a world-class expert on helium diffusion from minerals to measure these rates. The consistent answer: the helium does indeed seep out quickly over a wide range of temperatures. In fact, the results show that because of all the helium still in the zircons, these crystals (and since this is Precambrian basement granite, by implication the whole earth) could not be older than 14,000 years. In other words, in only a few thousand years, 1.5 billion years’ worth (at today’s rates) of radioactive decay has taken place. Interestingly, the data have since been refined and updated to give a date of 5,680 (± 2,000) years.
  • The paper looks at the various avenues a long-ager might take by which to wriggle out of these powerful implications, but there seems to be little hope for them unless they can show that the techniques used to obtain the results were seriously flawed.

The Bible clearly tells us that God created a mature universe: Adam was a man, not a baby, the trees and plants mature and on day six Adam could see all of the stars in heaven. God tells us that He stretched out the heavens at creation on day four. The Cosmos could only have been created by a being outside of His creation with miraculous powers.

Big Bang from nothing does not explain the complex ordered universe that is so evident, it is certainly not good science.

Taken from an article by Dr. Carl Weiland “Radiometric dating breakthroughs” http://www.creation.com

4. Humphreys, D. et al., Helium diffusion rates support accelerated nuclear decay, icr.org, 16 October 2003. Return to text.