As we progress through my major three objections against modern evolutionary theory I know that I camped on Objection 2 (no transitional forms and an abundance of fakes) for quite a while. I did this for two main reasons. Firstly, the history of fossil evidence, lack of transitional forms, the endless procession of fakes and frauds, and the bizarre "scientific speculations" on the future, is so ridiculous and runs so deep. Secondly, because of the constant crying of Kristoffer Haldrup who carries the double burden of having a brain the size of a planet and being a bishop in his evolutionary religion. The mountain heap of mock-worthy evidence is so huge that I could continue ad infinitum but let's move on to objection 3 today. As we go through the issue of dating rocks don't worry if some of the technical terms go over your head. Bear with me because I think the big picture in this is simple to grasp. I must thank the dedicated scientists at Answers In Genesis for much of the following material.
Objection 3: Scientists don't really know how old things are!
Geologists can’t use just any old rock for dating. They must find rocks that have the following parent radioisotopes to date rocks: uranium-238, uranium-235, potassium-40, rubidium-87, and samarium-147. These parent radioisotopes change into the corresponding daughter isotopes lead-206, lead-207, argon-40, strontium-87, and neodymium-143 isotopes, respectively. Thus geologists refer to uranium-lead (two versions), potassium-argon, rubidium-strontium, or samarium-neodymium dates for rocks. Note that the carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) method is not used to date rocks because most rocks do not contain carbon (more about that later).
Assumption 1: Conditions at Time Zero
No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotopes. For example, with regard to the volcanic lavas that erupted, flowed, and cooled to form rocks in the unobserved past, evolutionary geologists simply assume that none of the daughter argon-40 atoms was in the lava rocks.
For example, when a sample of the lava in the Mt. St. Helens crater (that had been observed to form and cool in 1986) was analyzed in 1996, it contained so much argon-40 that it had a calculated “age” of 350,000 years (S. A. Austin, “Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dacite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano,” Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal 10.3 (1996): 335–343).
Basalt rocks from the Grand Canyon were tested and aged at about 1 million years based on the amounts of potassium and argon isotopes in the rocks. But when we date the rocks using the rubidium and strontium isotopes, we get an age of 1.143 billion years (A. A. Snelling, “Isochron Discordances and the Role of Inheritance and Mixing of Radioisotopes in the Mantle and Crust,” in Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth: Results of a Young-Earth Creationist Research Initiative, eds. L. Vardiman, A. A. Snelling, and E. F. Chaffin (El Cajon, California: Institute for Creation Research; Chino Valley, Arizona: Creation Research Society, 2005), pp. 393–524; D. B. DeYoung, “Radioisotope Dating Case Studies” in Thousands . . . Not Billions (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 2005), pp. 123–139).
Assumption 2: No Contamination
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks. Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.
Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years! (A. A. Snelling, “The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, ed. R. L. Ivey, Jr. (Pittsburgh: Creation Science Fellowship, 2003), pp. 285–303; Ref. 4, 2005).
It is also interesting to note that large traces of Carbon 14 are found in diamonds that are "billions of years old". The reason they don't use carbon dating on rocks is because carbon decays so quickly compared to uranium half life. So there should be no Carbon 14 atoms in diamonds . . . unless they are only thousands of years old.
Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate
Geologists have assumed that these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years based on their stability over the 100 years that they have observed it. This uniformity is unproven, speculative, and in stark contrast to catastrophic global flood we see in the biblical account. It is also in conflict with other parts of evolutionary theory such as the "Big Bang" theory and the "cambrian explosion".
Evolution is Speculation and guess work! It is built upon naturalism which requires observation but cannot observe the big bang, the start of life, or the mutations it needs to be true. It assumes uniformity but has no explanation for it. It has no explanation for morality. It has no explanation for how a bang can happen without something to go bang!
Science cannot prove it's own assumptions:
1. The universe is real and nature is knowable.
2. All nature is subject to the same laws and therefore we can predict its behavior.
3. Measurable causes underlie all observable effects. (no explanation for first cause)
4. The simplest explanation is the accepted one.
The fact is that Theology is also based upon presuppositions and therefore there is a faith basis for both theology and science.
Christians have the foundation for science because it is only the Bible that affirms the presuppositions of science to be true. Hence, the scientific method was actually an historical outgrowth of the biblical worldview.
Go On To Part 10
Go Back To Part 8
Go Back To Part 1
Loneliness and the Church
3 hours ago