Romans 3:31: "Are we abolishing Moses' Teachings ....? That's UNTHINKABLE! Rather, we are SUPPORTING Moses' Teachings." --- God's Word Translation. A major if not the major argument for evolution that scientists use is a very old Earth which gives evolution enough time to occur. Radiometric dating is used to try to provide the long ages. This method, which the average person can easily understand basically, involves an unstable, radioactive element such as uranium, called the parent element, which over a long period of time disintegrates or transforms into the stable element lead, the daughter element. If a rock specimen contains lead and uranium, for example, scientists using sensitive instruments can determine the quantity of each element, and then can calculate the amount of time required for the uranium to decay or change into lead since the slow decay rate is already known. That calculation is the theoretical age of the rock. 1) Few people are aware that evolutionist scientists assume, and this is an ENORMOUS ASSUMPTION, that no daughter element existed originally in the rock sample. The rock could have been created with some or all of the daughter element in the rock since the daughter element is widely distributed in the Earth's crust. Therefore no calculated date can be guaranteed to be scientifically accurate. 2) The SECOND BAD, ENORMOUS ASSUMPTION evolutionists make is that no parent or daughter element was ever added to or subtracted from the rock sample. Many ways exist for the movement of either into or out of the rock specimen, especially through ground water leaching. The parent element, in the form of water soluble salts, can sometimes easily be dissolved out of rocks by water. Secular scientists try to minimize error resulting from the two previous assumptions by regularly applying a complex series of computations involving isochron diagrams to the dating procedures. However, the isochron method uses still more unproven assumptions, and the occurrence of frequently conflicting results shows that even the more "improved" dating method is still not reliable overall. 3) The third faulty assumption evolutionist scientists make is that the decay rate has been constant in the past, ANOTHER ENORMOUS ASSUMPTION. The isochron dating method does not correct mistakes arising from this last assumption. Cosmic radiation and environmental temperature extremes are known to affect decay rates. Even more important is evidence indicating that the speed of light could have been much faster in the past, possibly approaching infinity. Radioactive element decay rates are DIRECTLY RELATED to the speed of light. When radiometric dating methods are adjusted using an ever decreasing speed of light calculated dates can result in thousands of years, not millions or billions. When creationist geologists use reputable radiometric dating laboratories to determine the age of volcanic rock known to be less than 6,000 years old, the dating results are almost always in the millions of years. For example, scientists tried to use radiometric dating procedures to establish the age of rocks known to be less than 300 years old since the rocks had been formed by a volcanic eruption in Hawaii in 1800. The results indicated ages ranging from 160 million to 3 billion years which illustrate how tremendously deceptive radiometric dating can be. Radiocarbon dating has an upper limit of about 50,000 to 70,000 years for dating objects. Although C14 dating has a reputation for accuracy, the rate of C14 production and the rate of C14 decay in the past are never known with certainty due to unknown conditions such as electric fields that can change the decay rate. Since bone has been found to absorb carbon containing organic material, there is always a very great possibility of contamination which can also make calculated dates meaningless. More comments on radiocarbon dating will be given in the future. Radioactve material commonly used for dating, such as uranium, thorium, potassium, rubidium, vanadium, and others have half lives that START at about 750,000 years or more. A radiometric dating technique therefore is simply not available to date something that is between around 70,000 to 750,000 years old. When some "expert" tells you a specimen is 200,000 or 500,000 years old, those dates were arrived at by pure guesswork. In conclusion, the radiometric dating techniques evolutionists use simply cannot be trusted because of the critically important, unproven assumptions. The home page of this website is LITTLE PUBLICIZED ANOMIA.
References 1) DeYoung, Don, "Thousands....Not Billions," Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, pp. 34-35, 42
2) Morris, John, and Phillips, Doug, "Straight Answers to Tough Questions," Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 2002, p. 39
3) Huse, Scott, M., "The Collapse of Evolution," Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1990, p. 19
4) Slusher, Harold S., "Critique of Radiometric Dating," Institute for Creation Research, San Diego, California, 1981, p. 54
5) Sarfati, Jonathan, "Refuting Compromise," Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2004, pp. 379-381
6) Taylor, Paul S., "The Illustrated Origins Answer Book," Eden Productions, Mesa Arizona, 1990, pp. 12-13
7) Ackerman, Paul D., "It's a Young World After All," Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan, 1986, p. 12
8) Wieland, Carl, "Stones and Bones," Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005, p. 37
9) McLean, G. S., Oakland, Roger, and McLean, Larry, "The Evidence for Creation," Full Gospel Bible Institute, Saskatchewan, Canada, 1989, p. 41
10) Rusch, Sr., Wilbert, H., "The Argument Creationism VS Evolutionism," Creation Research Society Books, Norcross, Georgia, 1988, p. 52
11) Chaffin, Eugene F., Snelling, Andrew A., and Vardiman, Larry, "Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth," Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California, 2000, p. 3
12) Morris, Henry M., "Many Infallible Proofs," Master Books, Creation Life Publishers, El Cajon, California, 1990, p. 291-293
13) Gish, Duane, T., "Evolution: The Challenge of the Fossil Record," Creation-Life Publishers, El Cajon, California, 1986, p. 51