Creation's misquotes opened my eyes to TTATT, so I belive if you can communicate the issue appropriately with your father, you will be able to help him. My favorite is at page 96 of ce:
" 38 Before concluding that Bible chronology is in error, consider that radioactive dating methods have come under sharp criticism by some scientists. A scientific journal reported on studies showing that “dates determined by radioactive decay may be off—not only by a few years, but by orders of magnitude.” It said: “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” ( 53 - Popular Science, “How Old Is It?” by Robert Gannon, November 1979, p. 81.) 38. Do dates that are determined by radioactive decay and that are in conflict with Bible chronology prove that the Bible is in error?" "
First of all it's not a quote from a "scientific journal" but a popular science magazine, namely the "Popular Science". Second Creation does not tell us that Robert Gentry, the man who made the study, is a 7th Day Adventist. And third and most importan, the conclusion “Man, instead of having walked the earth for 3.6 million years, may have been around for only a few thousand.” is not only NOT supported by the "scientific journal", but is not even formulated by Gentry. It nothing more than an ironical comment by the Popular Science writer! But in Creation it is presented as a valid scientific argument.
You can find the original quote here, at the right column: http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=QQEAAAAAMBAJ&pg=81
When I first read it, I literally grabed my hair, poped off the chair like a champagne cork and started walking around the room (with handes still in my hair :-) )
