DID M A N GET HERE BY EVOLUTION OR BY CREATION? 102 been questioned on the basis of the possibility of the material being defective-for example, the material may have contained radiogenic argon a t the time of crystallization or may have suffered atmospheric c ~ n t a m i n a t i o n . "And ~ ~ ~ scientists a t Johns Hopkins University had said: "The dates are of doubtful value."174 In addition, it has been found that the potassium-argon ages do not always fall in proper sequence; in some cases the bed lying underneath gave an age younger than the bed lying above it. The potassium in the earth has been generating argon all the time. When rock is melted in volcanic activity, every bit of argon must have been boiled out for any reliable dating. But even if a minute trace remains, it could cause errors amounting to millions of years. It would take only the tiniest trace of argon inherited from the melted rock to make a 5,000-year-old bed of volcanic rock look 1,750,000 or 2,500,000 years old. That the potassium-argon method is unreliable is shown by the following item in Science Digest of December 1962:
. ..
"Through radioactive d a t i n g methods [potassium-argon], the age of the earth has been approximated a t 4,500 million years. A new and higher figure--6,500 million years-has now been given."ll5
Why this difference of 2,000,000,000 years? The article explains that the "new age for the earth may be the result of some overlooked factor in the potassium-argon dating technique." There are other dating methods too, but none in any way disprove the 6,000-year age of mankind given by the Bible. True, animal fossils are older, but the Bible, in its account of creation in Genesis,