Reasons to Believe
The view presented on the Reasons to Believe (RTB) website is a strange hybrid: a mixture of creationism, the gap theory and theistic evolution. It is the result of taking the interpretations of scientific facts that atheistic scientists have manipulated into an explanation of origins without a Creator, and trying to superimpose this onto Biblical passages that clearly say something very different.
So according to RTB billions of years are covered by the first verse of Genesis chapter one, starting with the big bang and seeing the Earth slowly emerge into a habitable planet, with millions of years of life forms gradually appearing and developing during the six creation days of this chapter. The hominids, claimed by evolutionists as past ancestors of humans, are considered to be separate, non–human creations of God that became extinct. Presumably the Almighty was experimenting to work out the best way to create humans!
This page responding to the site was actually initiated as a result of watching Hugh Ross in a television debate with a rather inept creationist, the latter doubtless being very knowledgeable on the subject, but totally unprepared to cross swords with such an experienced debater.
On the one hand Ross emphatically states that he believes the entire Bible is the word of God; but on the other he says that nature is the 67th book of the Bible and the Bible must be interpreted in the light of what can be seen around us. Now there is very good evidence for such a stance:
The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament shows His handiwork.
…the living God, who made the heaven, the earth, the sea, and all things that are in them, who in bygone generations allowed all nations to walk in their own ways. Nevertheless He did not leave Himself without witness, in that He did good, gave us rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling our hearts with food and gladness."
However, while this is what Ross says, it is not what he does! When he ‘looks at nature’, what he actually describes is the evolutionary interpretation of what he sees rather than nature itself, which is a tactic used by atheists and theistic evolutionists alike. This, then, ‘trumps’ the clear teaching of the Bible and we are treated to a list of
“When the Bible says x, it doesn’t mean x, it means y!”
Let me clarify what is meant by ‘the clear teaching of the Bible’. Take a normal, intelligent man, but who has no knowledge at all of what is contained in the Bible, and has never heard anything of either creationism or evolution. Now: when he reads the whole of the Bible in the original languages or any valid translation, what is he going to understand?
When he reads Genesis chapter one, he will see the entire creation took six days.
When he reads Exodus 20, he will see God reaffirms that the creation took six days and He rested on the seventh, and He uses this as a pattern that mankind should follow – work six days and rest on the seventh.
He will see there was a flood that covered all the land masses of the world and destroyed all of air–breathing life forms apart from those on the ark.
He will see that Jesus and His disciples accepted the writings of Moses (which includes Genesis) as literal truth.
So there is no way he will conclude that the word ‘day’ means ‘millions, or billions of years’. This interpretation can only arise as a result of hearing the evolutionary requirement for billions of years and then trying to impose it onto Biblical text.
It is perfectly valid to examine the original languages of the Bible to bring out meanings in words that may not be completely clear in English translations. However, when time after time a major argument revolves around the translation of a particular word from Hebrew or Greek into English, which is different from that found in the standard English versions of the Bible, one is forced to question its validity. This is typical of unchristian teachings used in various sects, and is a regular feature of Ross’s arguments.
When is a day not a day?
So, for example, when the Bible says ‘the evening and the morning were the first day’, according to Ross it actually means ‘the evening and the morning were the first period of time lasting anything up to a few billion years’! So in his article on the RTB web site, Greg Moore says,
“There is no scriptural or hermeneutical requirement the creation “days” must be interpreted as 24–hour time periods.”
This, of course, is logical nonsense: since ‘evening’ and ‘morning’ are specified (i.e. one period of darkness followed by one period of light), how on earth could this mean anything other than a 24–hour day? Of course, an Earth day is not exactly 24 hours, and I use this phrase for simplicity. Additionally, the rotation of the Earth is not constant, so a day during the creation week would have been slightly different to what it is now.
Additionally there is no example anywhere in the Bible of the word ‘day’, when linked with a number (first day, second day, third day, etc), referring to anything other than a 24–hour period. In an attempt to counter this point during the TV debate, Hugh Ross claimed there is an example and quoted:
After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His sight.
However, this is the only example he could produce, and as a part of prophetic writing it comes into a special category because it has a double meaning. For example, David wrote of his own experience…
“My God, my God, why have you forsaken me… “He trusted in the Lord, let Him rescue him”… They divide my garments among them, and for my clothing they cast lots…
…but it is universally accepted in the Church as being prophetic of the crucifixion of Jesus.
Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: “THEY DIVIDED MY GARMENTS AMONG THEM, AND FOR MY CLOTHING THEY CAST LOTS.”
Another example is:
Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.
This was a sign given by God to King Ahaz and in this case ‘virgin’ simply meant an unmarried woman: a single woman was called a virgin because it was a criminal offence to be anything other than that before marriage. However, in the New Testament this scripture is taken as prophetic of Jesus’ birth and the word ‘virgin’ is used literally to mean a virgin birth.
So all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying: “BEHOLD, THE VIRGIN SHALL BE WITH CHILD, AND BEAR A SON, AND THEY SHALL CALL HIS NAME IMMANUEL,” which is translated, "God with us."
There are very many examples of this; but I’ll just give one more from the same book that Ross quoted.
"When Israel was a child, I loved him, and out of Egypt I called My son.
This is quite clearly speaking of the nation of Israel being delivered from Egypt, but Matthew tells us it was prophetic of Jesus.
…that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet, saying, "OUT OF EGYPT I CALLED MY SON."
Over and over again we see prophetic passages in the Old Testament given a double meaning. Of these two meanings, which is the most important? Clearly, the reason for these passages being included in the scriptures is because they were prophetic of things to come, as we have just seen in Hosea.
In the same way that God created everything by His word, so He ‘creates’ future events by his prophetic word. Therefore, while the original meaning comes first, the most important one is that which comes second – that which is being prophesied – because this is the way in which God is bringing about His purposes. So we can conclude that the ‘primary’ meaning is the future event; while the ‘secondary’ meaning is that of the original event. In the light of this, let us look at the Hosea passage.
After two days He will revive us; on the third day He will raise us up, that we may live in His sight.
This scripture’s double meaning applies firstly to Israel, that after a period of time God will intervene and deliver her; but the primary meaning is prophetic of the resurrection of Jesus Christ, who was raised on the third day.
…Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and …He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures.
1 Corinthians 15:3–4
So while the initial application of the sentence relates to a period of time, it is clear that the wording was deliberately chosen to foretell the victory of Jesus over death in three literal days. Therefore this scripture in no way can be used to prove that the days of Genesis 1 were long periods of time; and it is still the case that there is no example of ‘first day’, ‘second day’ or ‘third day’ used anywhere in the Bible where they do not relate to a 24–hour period of time.
In contrast, the phrases are found in the following number of Old Testament verses, without any example clearly referring to a period of time longer than 24 hours:
First day: 64 verses
Second day: 32 verses
Third day: 36 verses (KJV), 37 verses (NKJV)
Fourth day: 14 verses (KJV), 20 verses (NKJV)
Fifth day: 16 verses (KJV), 18 verses (NKJV)
Sixth day: 10 verses
Seventh day: 65 verses (KJV), 69 verses (NKJV)
In order to maintain the theory proposed by RTB, one must accept a definition for these phrases that is totally different from that found anywhere else in the dozens of verses where they are used throughout the rest of the Old Testament.
There is one other point to be made here: it is a fact that the days of the week are never given a name in the Bible - either Old or New Testaments. Where we would say, “Sunday,” the Bible calls it “The first day of the week.” Where we would say, “Saturday,” the Bible reads, “The seventh day of the week.”
Therefore, if one was to be consistent with the way the days of the week are named throughout the Bible, it would be perfectly valid in today’s English language to translate Gen 1:5 as, “The evening and the morning were Sunday;” or Gen 1:31 as, “The evening and the morning were Friday.” This then makes it crystal clear: each day of the creation week was a 24-hour day.
God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day.
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good. So the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
The death of death
In his article, while countering a creationist, Greg Moore says,
“Second, Mortenson contends the day–age view of millions of years of animal death before the creation of man contradicts the Bible’s teaching about sin and death. The Bible speaks of sin, death and spiritual redemption. This limits the meaning to human death. For these teachings to apply to animals, Christ’s redemptive work would have to extend to animals, which is implausible. Such a wide interpretation of the scope of the atonement has no scriptural support.”
This sweeping assumption does not follow logically. The fact that the whole of creation has been affected by Adam’s sin has nothing to do with whether animals can be redeemed or not. For example:
Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You shall not eat of it’: “Cursed is the ground for your sake; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life. Both thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you…
This scripture makes it plain that vegetation was altered as a result of Adam’s sin: thorns and thistles were now going to appear when previously they did not. Of course, RTB must maintain that this verse is incorrect: that thorns and thistles were always there. So they are contradicting the plain teaching of the Bible in another example of claiming that when the Bible says “x” it doesn’t mean “x”, but “y”.
If vegetation was altered, then all the other life forms were equally likely to have been affected. This is demonstrated by God’s intention to restore animals back to their original vegetarian lifestyle:
The wolf and the lamb shall feed together, the lion shall eat straw like the ox, and dust shall be the serpent’s food. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all My holy mountain,” says the Lord.
Greg Moore says,
“It is reasonable to conclude carnivorous activity was part of the original creation.”
This is a statement clearly contradictory to the Bible (another example of claiming that when the Bible says “x” it doesn’t mean “x”, but “y”), which tells us that all animals were vegetarian when originally created:
And God said, “See, I have given you every herb that yields seed which is on the face of all the earth, and every tree whose fruit yields seed; to you it shall be for food. Also, to every beast of the earth, to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.
Animals were created vegetarian and they are going to become vegetarian once again in the future. What brought about the change to make them carnivorous, thus taking them away from God’s original design? It is the same thing that brought about the change in vegetation: Adam’s sin! So since the Bible clearly teaches that carnivory is the result of sin entering the world, it can equally be shown that the death that resulted from sin not only affected humans, but animals as well.
Therefore, just as through one man sin entered the world, and death through sin, and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned…
RTB claims that this scripture relates only to men, not animals. If it were the only reference, there may be some justification in the claim. However, death is called an enemy:
The last enemy that will be destroyed is death.
1 Corinthians 15:26
Note that it does not say ‘human death’ is an enemy that will be destroyed, but simply ‘death’! Death – the enemy – entered the world through Adam’s sin, and now it is being eradicated. If it is going to be destroyed in the future, then it was never a part of God’s plan in the first place.
Inasmuch then as the children have partaken of flesh and blood, He Himself likewise shared in the same, that through death He might destroy him who had the power of death, that is, the devil…
So it is the devil who ‘had the power of death’. Is it really likely that the devil had the power of death over humans, a situation which God intends to reverse and therefore considers ‘bad’; but at the same time God deliberately designed death for animals and called it ‘good’?
…but has now been revealed by the appearing of our Saviour Jesus Christ, who has abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel,
2 Timothy 1:10
He will swallow up death forever, and the Lord GOD will wipe away tears from all faces; the rebuke of His people He will take away from all the earth; for the LORD has spoken.
And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away."
Is it really the case that God is going to eradicate sorrow and pain in humans but allow it to continue in animals? That God could call disease, suffering, pain and death in animals “Very good,” while at the same time eliminating it from humans?
Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good.
Clearly, throughout the Bible God’s prime concern is shown to be for humans; but at the end of the book of Jonah is a hint that He does have a care for animals too…
and should not I have pity on Nineveh, that great city; wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle? Jonah 4:11 (Revised Version)
…and in Proverbs we are told:
A righteous man regards the life of his animal, but the tender mercies of the wicked are cruel.
The fossil record, which RTB claims was built up over millions of years before Adam and Eve came onto the scene, shows clear evidence of sickness, suffering, carnivory and death amongst animals. Yet God said it was all “very good.” There is a clear contradiction here, between the claims of RTB and the revelation of God’s nature in the Bible.
Of course, there is a further contradiction. We have millions of years of evolution, gradually building up from a very simple single-celled life form to the hominids that we are told were the ancestors to humans. Every single one of them died, and death is an essential element in evolution: without death greater complexity cannot develop. However, as we have seen, the Bible makes it clear that the first humans would never have died had they not sinned. So suddenly, if RTB are correct, we have beings able to live forever, evolving from creatures that, like every life-form before them, were all destined to die. This is illogical. Either death would affect all, or none.
Finally, let us consider what death actually is – what brings death to a body. I can think of five different contributory things:
Disease caused through infection from some kind of organism
Damage through some kind of accident
Even RTB must accept that God’s original intention for humans was that they should not die; but that death has come about because of sin, which cut us off in some way from God’s presence. When we bear this in mind, it becomes obvious why we now suffer death.
Disease: the infections from which we suffer due to the invasion of viruses or bacteria would not have taken place at all had it not been for the disastrous event of Adam’s sin. These organisms, which can have such a deadly effect on us today, have doubtless themselves mutated and changed from their original design. Our bodies are dependent on ‘friendly bacteria’, but it is very likely that through mutation, some ‘friends’ became ‘enemies’! Furthermore, bacteria essential in the soil to break down material and produce fertility, can be lethal if it enters into the human system (for example). These factors would have been no threat at all to Adam and Eve had they not sinned but remained in close fellowship with God: there would have been no disease.
Damage/injury through accidents: had the close relationship with God been able to remain, His protection would have been such that accidents simply would not happen. Included in this category is injury through attacks from other people or animals. These too would have been unheard of, since it was the introduction of sin that ultimately led to animals becoming ‘wild’ and humans aggressive toward one another.
Mutation: it was not God’s design that man should live separated from Him. His intention, that will be fulfilled in the future ages to come, is that His close Presence fills every living body, controlling cell division and ensuring that mutation never takes place. For people who may think that the control of incalculable trillions of events of cell division every second is impossible for God, they clearly have no idea how big He is!
Aging: this takes place when the systems in the body start to break down. Once again, God’s intention is for His presence to fill every body so that this does not take place.
Mental problems: the effect of the mind over the body is considerable. Through stress of one sort or another, the mind can adversely affect the body and bring about physical problems. We were not designed for lives of stress and it is hardly surprising therefore when we break down as a result of it. God’s original plan and His plan for the future, is for us to live lives completely stress–free, and mental problems will no longer be an issue.
So these five areas will be controlled by God in future ages, as He intended to control them in His original creation, and death will be eradicated. However, animal bodies work in the same way as human bodies. So why should it be any different for them? As we have seen, aggressive behaviour is going to be changed in them, so why should these other areas also not be changed? It is perfectly consistent, both logically and theologically, that just as death in humans will cease to exist, so will death in animals.
Asah, Bara and seven days
Greg Moore says,
“An additional point should be made about the verb “made” (asah) in verse 16. Asah means to fabricate or fashion something and is different from the Hebrew verb “create” (bara) used elsewhere in Genesis 1. Bara means to bring forth something brand new by divine fiat. God made (asah) the Sun, Moon and stars; He did not bara them.”
So he claims that bara means to create something new, while asah means to fabricate or fashion something that already exists. However, this does not fit in with the way these two words are used in Genesis chapter one.
Then God said, "Let Us make (asah) man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." So God created (bara) man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.
In verse 26 He says, “Let us ‘asah’ man…” and verse 27 says “God ‘bara’ man in His own image.” So both of these words are used of the same action and therefore they are used interchangeably with identical meaning. Let’s look at the definitions of these two Hebrew words in two different dictionaries:
A primitive root; (absolutely) to create; (qualified) to cut down (a wood), select, feed (as formative processes): – choose, create (creator), cut down, dispatch, do, make (fat).
A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application: – accomplish, advance, appoint, apt, be at, become, bear, bestow, bring forth, bruise, be busy, X certainly, have the charge of, commit, deal (with), deck, + displease, do, (ready) dress (–ed), (put in) execute (–ion), exercise, fashion, + feast, [fight–] ing man, + finish, fit, fly, follow, fulfil, furnish, gather, get, go about, govern, grant, great, + hinder, hold ([a feast]), X indeed, + be industrious, + journey, keep, labour, maintain, make, be meet, observe, be occupied, offer, + officer, pare, bring (come) to pass, perform, practise, prepare, procure, provide, put, requite, X sacrifice, serve, set, shew, X sin, spend, X surely, take, X thoroughly, trim, X very, + vex, be [warr–] ior, work (–man), yield, use.
Strong’s Hebrew and Greek Dictionaries
1) to create, shape, form
1a) (Qal) to shape, fashion, create (always with God as subject)
1a1) of heaven and earth
1a2) of individual man
1a3) of new conditions and circumstances
1a4) of transformations
1b) (Niphal) to be created
1b1) of heaven and earth
1b2) of birth
1b3) of something new
1b4) of miracles
1c1) to cut down
1c2) to cut out
2) to be fat
2a) (Hiphil) to make yourselves fat
Part of Speech: verb
1) to do, fashion, accomplish, make
1a1) to do, work, make, produce
1a1a) to do
1a1b) to work
1a1c) to deal (with)
1a1d) to act, act with effect, effect
1a2) to make
1a2a) to make
1a2b) to produce
1a2c) to prepare
1a2d) to make (an offering)
1a2e) to attend to, put in order
1a2f) to observe, celebrate
1a2g) to acquire (property)
1a2h) to appoint, ordain, institute
1a2i) to bring about
1a2j) to use
1a2k) to spend, pass
1b1) to be done
1b2) to be made
1b3) to be produced
1b4) to be offered
1b5) to be observed
1b6) to be used
1c) (Pual) to be made
2) (Piel) to press, squeeze
Part of Speech: verb
Brown–Driver–Briggs Hebrew Definitions
It can be seen that Hebrew words are rich in meaning and it is highly dubious to put the simplistic definitions to asah and bara that RTB use in their attempt to twist the scriptures into saying what they want them to say.
However, even if their theory was correct and Genesis 1:1 describes the time that God created everything out of nothing, and then the following verses are about God reconstituting or reforming what was now in existence as a result of His ‘bara’, this still has no effect on the main point about billions of years versus six literal days. Indeed, as I have pointed out, it is quite likely that the first verse of Genesis does describe the moment when God brought into existence the physical domain and at the same time created the physical substance from which He then formed the stars, planets and everything on them during the rest of the creation week. The fact that animals and humans were created from the dust of the earth, rather than out of nothing, seems to support this; but why should Almighty God have needed billions of years in which to do it? He quite clearly states that He did it in six days, and that is the end of the matter.
Furthermore, the use of bara and asah in the Bible contradicts RTB’s notion that the seven days of Genesis refer to long periods of time. In order to maintain this position, they insist that the seventh day, on which God rested, is a long period of time like the other six days; it still continues to the present time, and while He continues to ‘work’ in other ways, He is resting from His acts of creation. However, throughout the Old Testament, God is spoken of as creating, with both bara and asah being used of His activity. I will not quote the verses in full to conserve space, but for the record, see:
Bara: Numbers 16:30; Isaiah 4:5; 43:15; 48:7; Jeremiah 31:22; Psalm 51:10; 102:18; Amos 4:13
Asah: Genesis 46:3; 1 Samuel 12:22; 25:28; Job 12:9; Psalm 100:3; Daniel 9:14; Zechariah 10:1
So the claim that He has been resting from both bara and asah because the ‘seventh day’ continues up to the present time is quite clearly wrong.
Even apart from the use of these words in the Bible, of which the above references are a small sample, it is clear that God has continued to work, as Jesus Himself pointed out:
But Jesus answered them, "My Father has been working until now, and I have been working."
For example, we are told the Israelites’ clothes and shoes did not wear out for the 40 years they were in the wilderness.
And I have led you forty years in the wilderness. Your clothes have not worn out on you, and your sandals have not worn out on your feet.
There are only two ways this could have taken place. Either there was a total absence of friction, which could not have been the case because it would be impossible to remain standing or to walk on shoes without friction; or God was creating material to replace that which was wearing out through friction in normal use.
There were two widows who saw miraculous provision of oil in the Old Testament: 1 Kings 17:13–16; 2 Kings 4:3–7, and in the first incident there was also the miraculous creation of meal as well as oil. The only way this could have taken place was by God creating the oil as it was poured out and meal as it was used.
In the New Testament, the miraculous feeding of 5,000 and 4,000 by Jesus could only have taken place by God creating bread and fish as they were distributed.
“When I broke the five loaves for the five thousand, how many baskets full of fragments did you take up?” They said to Him, “Twelve.” “Also, when I broke the seven for the four thousand, how many large baskets full of fragments did you take up?” And they said, “Seven.”
So, yet again, RTB teaching quite clearly contradicts the plain statements of the Bible.
Furthermore the processes we see taking place throughout the universe are the same now that they have always been for billions of years, according to the naturalistic view of origins: the stars, planets, galaxies, etc., have simply reached a more mature state than they were previously. So if these processes are what God used to create the universe, and they continue to function as they always did, in what way can He now be said to be ‘resting’ from creation? Apart from the universe becoming more mature, nothing has changed; so if He was working then, He is working now.
There are three places in the Old Testament where we are told God created the world in six days and rested on the seventh: Genesis 1 & 2; Exodus 20:11; and Exodus 31:17. This alone should be enough to make anyone stop and think: if the Bible says something three times over, it probably means it and it is important! However, let us look at the third of these three.
It is a sign between Me and the children of Israel forever; for in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, and on the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.' "
It says, “On the seventh day He rested and was refreshed.” In other words, the result of resting on the seventh day was that He experienced refreshment. This is in the past tense. It is something that happened then, not now. If the RTB theory is correct, then this verse should read...
“On the seventh day God is resting and being refreshed,”
...because according to them the seventh day of God’s rest is still continuing. Exactly what is meant by God’s refreshment is not really relevant here: the whole point is that it took place in the past and is not an on-going experience today, and this is the case whatever ‘refreshment’ means.
A plain reading of this verse, both grammatically and logically, results in the conclusion that the result of a full day of rest was that God then experienced refreshment. It makes nonsense of language to try to distort these words into seven periods of thousands, millions or billions of years and manipulate such a plain sentence into saying something it quite clearly is not.
Days Three and Four
Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb that yields seed, and the fruit tree that yields fruit according to its kind, whose seed is in itself, on the earth”; and it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb that yields seed according to its kind, and the tree that yields fruit, whose seed is in itself according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the third day.
Greg Moore claims that the entire universe was created in Gen 1:1; so on day four the sun had already been in existence for millions or billions of years, but at this time God enabled its light to penetrate for the first time onto Earth.
Then God made two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He made the stars also. God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light on the earth, and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. So the evening and the morning were the fourth day.
This, of course, presents a considerable problem for the vegetation that was created on the third day. If sunlight was unable to penetrate to Earth during the millions of years that passed during this ‘third day’, then photosynthesis would have been impossible for the grass, herbs and trees and they could not have survived. On the other hand, if enough of the sun’s light had been able to penetrate the darkness that surrounded the Earth to keep the vegetation alive during the millions of years of day three, then how could it have been described as being made (asah) on day four?
Greg Moore says,
“The evidence for an old earth is overwhelming and incontrovertible. Multitudes of dating methods–both radiometric and non–radiometric–present a consistent picture, indicating the earth's age is best measured in millions or billions of years, not thousands of years.”
This ignores the unprovable evolutionary assumptions about radiometric dating, which are:
We know the starting conditions
Change has always been at the same rate
Nothing has ever happened to change radioactive isotopes other than time passing.
It also ignores such facts as:
Extrapolating the reducing magnetic field around the Earth back for billions of years results in a strength impossibly high.
The rate of erosion of land masses around the world is such that if the world were billions of years old, all the land would have been covered by water millions of years ago.
The sea would be far saltier than it is now, by orders of magnitude, if the Earth were billions of years old.
The moon is retreating from the Earth at such a rate that at the time when mammals were supposed to be evolving, it would have been so close that the tides would have been sweeping over the land where they lived, drowning them!
See here for 101 evidences for a ‘young’ Earth.