A typical geologist goes to a radioisotope laboratory to submit several samples that he needs dated. When filling out the forms, one of the questions on the form asks how old the sample is expected to be. Why would this question need to be asked if the techniques for radioactive dating are absolutely reliable and infallible? This is due to there being so many different anomalies in the radioactive dating process. So the geologist or other customer of the laboratory submits the age that he needs to support his claim. The laboratory is looking for a benchmark in obtaining a “good” date . . . and customer satisfaction. The results that work get published leading to the exchange of money and fame, and the results that do not support the claim get discarded or explained away.
“Some of the basic assumptions of the conventional Rb-Sr (rubidium-strontium) isochron method have to be modified and an observed isochron does not certainly define valid age information for a geological system, even if a goodness of fit of the experimental results is obtained in plotting Sr-87/Sr-86. This problem cannot be overlooked, especially in evaluating the numerical time scale.” Dr. Y.F. Zheng, famous evolutionary geologist involved in the dating of “Lucy.”
In other words, problems do exist with all of the radioactive dating methods, but often scientists are looking for a “good fit” to get their theory published. Attending years of study in order to obtain a PhD can make one credible in a certain field, but it does not make one infallible. Many people believe that scientists can measure the actual age of rocks and fossils using foolproof systems. By educating ourselves on these systems and the variety of results that they yield, we can start to be more objective and critical about their claims which are contrary to God’s Word. In fact, it is impossible to measure the age of rocks and fossils, but scientists can very accurately measure the concentrations of the different radioactive isotopes that are present in rocks and fossils. With this information on the ratio of daughter elements (the element created after the radioactive decay process) to its parent elements (the original radioactive isotope prior to decay), they form a calculated guess to the age of the rock or fossil based upon assumptions which cannot be proven. The problem is not with measuring the ratio of the parent and daughter elements; the problem revolves around the assumptions made in interpreting the data to formulate an age. Four big assumptions impact their conclusions.
In the Beginning . . .
The first assumption is that the starting condition is known. For example, Uranium-238 decays to Lead-208 with an extremely long half life. If you have a mountain filled with Uranium-238 and Lead-206, does this mean all of the lead in the mountain came from decaying uranium ore? Scientists would measure the amount of Uranium-238 and Lead-206 and then examine the ratio in relation to the half-life and conclude that the mountain in millions of years old. The key assumption is that there was no lead in the earth’s beginning and that all of the lead came from the uranium undergoing millions of years of radioactive decay. The fundamental problem with this assumption is that according to Creationism, the Earth was created in a mature state. So, when you take the mountain into consideration, the amount of lead versus uranium from the very beginning is truly unknown. Bottom line, uniformitarian scientists take the measurements and decay rates of today and draw their conclusions on the past which leads us to the next point.
Does looking at today tell us about the past?
The second assumption that uniformitarianists make in their calculations which exceed millions of years is that radioactive decay rates are always constant. Radioactivity is a concept that is less than 200 years old. Radioactive decay as a scientific method was introduced shortly after World War II. These concepts are still in their infancy to mankind and there could be many deviations to the currently accepted model yet to be discovered. It is completely unknown whether or not current half-life values change, slow down, or speed up from millennium to millennium. In other words, we do not know if the half-life values in the year 1008 are different than the value we use now. Physicist Robert Gentry was studying zircon crystals from deep bores within granite rocks which were dated to be 1.5 billion years old. Within the sample, there were amounts of helium and lead which are residuals of radioactive decay. The amount of lead was generally consistent with the old date, but the amount of helium present was not. The helium should have diffused out of the rock within millions of years. Some scientists conclude that this could be evidence that radioactive decay rates were faster in the past than they are today. It should also be known that when radioactive decay happens within solid rock, is causes spherical damage or discoloration to the crystal structure. A speck of Uranium-238 can decay and produce a different radius of discoloration for each element it forms during the decay process till we are eventually left with Lead-206. When you cut these rocks open, you will see a cross-section of these rings known as radiohalos. While some radioactive elements such as uranium have a very long half-life, others have a very short one lasting only minutes. Polonium-218 has a half-life of three minutes, and their radiohalos are often found embedded in crystals without any parent uranium halos. This means one of two things: they were formed during the creation week and lasted a whole 3 minutes, or that decay rates in the past are radically different than they are today. Either possibility challenges the old earth theory. Bottom line, human beings are so limited in what we know and perceive, yet in our arrogance we claim to be so sure of what we think we know.
Is there any such thing as a closed system?
The third assumption is that the system being measured is closed and isolated and that none of the parent or daughter isotopes were lost or added. Closed, isolated systems must be free from the effects of erosion, weather, underground water streams, and geological activity such as earthquakes and volcanoes. During the decay, a radioactive metal may decay into lead, but it is also giving off helium which adds a whole new dynamic, gas. Also, these minerals are known to diffuse and move in and out of each other which makes taking a sample from a “closed” system all the more complicated. If scientists had the opportunity to talk to someone like Noah, he would be a witness to them how the earth, its hydrologic system, its climate, and its landscape was radically transformed within one year’s time. In some places, the earth’s mantle made up of many types of metals and their isotopes spewed forth to the surface following the vacuum created by the subterranean water escaping into the upper atmosphere under immense heat and pressure. All of this can greatly confuse the dating process. Geologist Andrew Snelling, working on dating Koogarra uranium deposits in the Northern Territory of Australia, used a radioactive decay method of measuring Uranium-Thorium-Lead (U-Th-Pb). He found that in heavily weathered soil samples in unclosed systems were falsely given results in the 1.4 billion years old range. As a result, a host of terminology was invented to describe these common anomalies such as pseudoisochron, erupted isochron, apparent isochron, mantle isochron, mixing line, and false isochron. In 1966, Nobel Prize nominee and
Can we use different methods and get the same age?
The fourth assumption is that the system is being measured right with all factors in consideration. Several different methods for radioactive dating exist: Carbon-14, potassium-argon, uranium-thorium-lead, and several others. Among all of the different methods, they should show the same results when compared. In
In Conclusion
In the 1700s, the theory of spontaneous regeneration was the popular scientific belief that a hair from a horse’s tail would fall off and eventually turn into a worm or a snake. Also, it was believed that meat spontaneously turned into maggots. When Louis Pasteur started putting meat or horse hair in a closed beaker and began to observe it, we discovered that hairs do not turn into worms and that maggots come from flies, not rotting meat. Louis Pasteur had debunked the theory and changed our understanding with empirical evidence. The challenge to our generation is to ask what the “theories of spontaneous regeneration” are in our day and age which are contrary to God’s Word and to expose them. It is our duty to know and understand the systems that are used. Often we get bombarded from scientists that their claims are infallible, but when you consider the evidence and its source, you find a fallible human being limited to five senses and range of instruments who can only perceive three dimensions and no more. God is Infinite and Eternal, perceiving from all dimensions, and is not bound by time like we are. There are many mysteries and adjustments yet to be discovered. Sir Isaac Newton saw science as man’s quest to make discoveries about Creation and its Creator. A great perversion has swayed mankind from that pure pursuit to a much different creation story involving random molecules forming into amoebas which changed into fish, amphibians, lizards, mammals, apes, and then man over billions of years. This alternate creation story has stolen the hearts of our scientific community. Today, we see the fulfillment of Scripture in that in the last days powerful delusions and blasphemies will come upon the earth to deceive mankind.
“Where were you when I laid the foundations of the earth?” God, Job 38:4
No comments:
Post a Comment