Creation Conference Notes – ‘The Earth is 6,000 +/- 850 Years (Science)’ by Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo

I must apologize for the brevity of this post. I have small children and due to the lateness of the hour, I was unable to hear the entirety of Dr. Mastropaolo‘s 2nd lecture at the 6th Annual KCSG Creation Conference. My notes are therefor incomplete.

He began his lecture with a question: “How old is the Earth?” The answer, of course, depends on how you determine the age of the Earth – and how reliable your assessment is, for every method for measuring anything must be calibrated!

To this end, he illustrated how we can use statistical reliability to determine the age of the Earth. He noted that when confronted with statistical data, the information must be calibrated somehow in order to be sure it is reliable. He illustrated this briefly and then applied this to long age assumptions of billions of years for the age of the Earth. He noted that if we take a chunk of metamorphic rock we know to be 10 or 49 years old and use it to calibrate the methods used to measure the age of the earth that they can be shown to be completely unreliable. Radiometric dating gives us dates that suggest these rocks of kknown age are actually hundreds of thousands or even millions of years old! If we can’t trust these methods to date rocks whose age is known, how can we trust these methods to date the age of rocks whose age we don’t know? No one would accept such conflated error without an a priori faith commitment to long ages. He believes that the Earth has undergone too many changes to be accurately measured by radiometric dating methods.

At this point I had to leave, but his outline suggests that he pointed out that the historical method is a valid scientific means of dating the earth, then provided a summary table showing how only historical data can pass as science and ending with a note that textbooks have no science reference in regards to the long age dates they erringly provide.

Carl Priest, also a member of the Kanawha Creation Science Group, has summarized this nicely:

“The age of the Earth by direct, historical records was found reliable at 6,800 ± 850 years old whereas confidence limits found the 19th century indirect methods unreliable. The 20th century radioisotope indirect methods were found significantly biased, invalid, unreliable, uncalibrated, and if calibrated still entirely unreliable, invalid, and useless for any estimate for the age of the Earth. The only scientifically responsible conclusion was that the Earth is 6,800 = ± 850 years old.”

I again apologize for the incomplete status of these notes; however, it does appear that a more complete written presentation of his lecture material can be found beginning at the heading “Age of the Earth” on page 11 at: .  

Note: In the following poll, “Dr. Joseph Mastropaolo’s objections to radiometric dating” refers to the argument found in the pdf found at

–Sirius Knott         


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s