Introduction
\nQuestions, Questions, Questions
\nHow Old is the Earth? How Old is the universe? Isn\u2019t the Earth billions of years old? Isn\u2019t it absurd that some suggest the Bible claims creation took place only 6,000 years ago? Are there really scores of ways to show that the Earth and the universe are very young? Doesn\u2019t Carbon-14 dating\u2014and other types of radioactive dating methods\u2014prove that the Earth is billions of years old? What is radiometric dating? Doesn\u2019t light coming from distant stars prove that the universe is far older than 6,000 years? Is the speed of light slowing down? Weren\u2019t the moon rocks brought back by the American astronauts billions of years old, as reported by the media and in scientific journals? HOW did the Apollo moon landing baffle the evolutionists concerning the age of the moon? HOW is it that live penguins, seals, and mollusks have been dated as having been dead thousands of years? HOW do evolutionists use circular reasoning in their attempts to prove fossils to be millions of years old? What is circular reasoning?
\nIn Volume VIII, The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe, 30 testimonies or clocks which reveal that creation occurred recently were discussed. It was made evident that the evolutionary concept of creation taking place over billions of years is purely science fiction. This volume focuses on the fallacies of radiometric dating (RMD). The public has been led to believe that RMD is a foolproof system for dating rocks and fossils offering indisputable evidence of the ancient ages required by evolutionism. But there is another side of the story which most people have not heard. We will investigate this \u201csacred cow\u201d of evolutionism and show that it doesn\u2019t have even one leg to stand on. The legs (evolutionary academia) of this golden image (RMD) are laced with unprovable assumptions. These assumptions represent weak links in the radiometric dating processes used by evolutionists to try to prove immense ages of the Earth. (See fig. #1.) These assumptions are not only unfounded, but there are valid reasons for doubting their reliability. RMD, this \u201cgolden image\u201d evolutionists worship, is nothing more than a mythical creature which Satan has seduced the disciples of Darwin to idolize. We shall see the truth of the indictment against this \u201choly cow\u201d in the following chapters of this book. The dismantling is about to begin.
\nFigure #1. THE WEAK LINKS OF RMD<\/p>\n
PART I
\nEXPOSING A 20TH CENTURY FAIRYTALE
\nChapter 1: The Mythological Ruler of Evolutionism
\nChapter 2: Guessing the Fat Man\u2019s Age
\nChapter 3: Merry-Go-Round Reasoning
\nChapter One
\nThe Mythological Ruler of Evolutionism
\nThe Evolutionary Ruler for Measuring Time (See fig. #2.)
\nSeveral years ago when my son, Golan, was five years old and learning how to measure himself, he came running into our kitchen one day. He excitedly exclaimed to my wife and me that he had just measured himself and found that he had grown considerably since he had last been measured. I asked, \u201cJust how much have you grown?\u201d Golan answered, \u201cI\u2019m over six feet tall.\u201d With a slight chuckle and trying not to dampen his spirits, I suggested we measure him one more time. Together we went to his room where there was a chart for measuring taped to his closet door. However, instead of heading for the chart, Golan retrieved a ruler of sorts which he had made. I immediately understood how he had arrived at his height: Golan had made his own ruler.
\nFigure #2. HOMEMADE RULERS FOR HOMEMADE BOYS<\/p>\n
I suppose many a child has made his own ruler out of a stick or branch from his backyard. Golan had been watching the college basketball playoffs and had seen the fellows jam the ball through the hoop. With a desire to do likewise and a little resourcefulness and ingenuity, Golan had notched the stick every four or five inches, with every notch supposedly equaling a foot. With his newly devised measuring device he measured himself to be over six feet tall. Actually, he was just over 3 feet! This is exactly what the evolutionary community has done. They have made their own ruler to determine the age of the universe, the solar system and the earth.
\nThe Evolutionary Imaginary Ruler
\nLike my son Golan, the evolutionary community went out in the \u201cbackyard,\u201d and found a \u201cbranch.\u201d Then they brought it back into the laboratory and made their own ruler. For the last 150 years they have published the results of their measurements with this ruler as fact in their textbooks. Their backyard is Mother Nature and the branch they have used as a ruler is called the geological column and the evolutionary tree of life. (See fig. #3.) It must be stated that this \u201cruler\u201d exists nowhere except in the imaginations of evolutionists. It has no factual basis. (The mythology of evolutionary geology will be covered in detail in a subsequent volume of the Creation Series.)
\nThe Mythological Geological Column
\nWhen evolutionists first attempted to support their assumption of vast amounts of time for the age of the Earth they maintained that all the features now on the Earth\u2014mountains, valleys, canyons, rivers, oceans, etc.\u2014came into existence through the operation of the natural laws and processes we see operating today. The slow erosion we now see taking place in the Grand Canyon in Arizona is used as an example of the slow and gradual process. This is known as evolutionary uniformitarianism. In other words, natural processes such as erosion are some of the ways evolutionists endeavor to determine the age of the universe, the solar system and the Earth. This speculation gave birth to the evolutionary geological column\u2014a hypothetical ruler of time. Why have they chosen to make a ruler based on what appears to be a very slow and time-consuming process? The answer is very simple. Evolutionists believe that for evolution to work, great amounts of time are required. Time is the \u201clifeblood\u201d of evolutionism. Without the idea of vast amounts of time, evolutionism doesn\u2019t have a ghost of a chance to work.
\nFigure #3. THE IMAGINARY RULER OF LIFE<\/p>\n
When the Shoe Doesn\u2019t Fit, Find a Bigger One
\nSo important is time to their theory that the evolutionary community has found it necessary to renumber their ruler by doubling the approximate age of the Earth about every 20 years. Their mythological time chart was devised 150 years ago. The names given to the various eras have, for the most part, remained the same; however, the ages for each have grown immensely to accommodate the theory of evolution. During the 1800\u2019s evolutionists estimated the age of the Earth to be between 3 million and 1.6 billion years. When it became apparent that the theory of evolution could not possibly work in that amount of time, evolutionists were compelled to assume longer and longer periods of time for the evolutionary history of the Earth. Over the past century, the estimated age of the Earth has doubled approximately every twenty years. In other words, when the shoe is too small, evolutionists throw it out and get a larger size.
\nYEAR
\nAGE OF EARTH
\n1850
\n25 million
\n1935
\n1.6 billion
\n1960
\n2 billion
\n1975
\n4.6 billion
\nSuch rapid aging makes it appear that evolutionism has a bad case of progeria, an aging disease. (See fig. #8.)
\nWhat most people fail to realize is that time is not the savior of evolutionism. Time has no power to create. An impossibility is not enhanced by more time. Zero times zero for a zillion years will never equal anything but zero. The fact is, time destroys rather than creates. For a person longing to fly, all the flapping of arms will not help him fly. Actually, the more time he spends flapping, the more exhausted he will become. If one believes that a leap over the edge of a cliff may somehow increase one\u2019s chances of flying, one will quickly learn that such an idea is mere wishful thinking. One will be permanently grounded from making any future attempts.
\nAlphabet Soup
\nSuppose a million alphabet cards fell from a plane. What do you think the mathematical chances would be that they would end up spelling your name when they finally came to rest on the ground? About as much as a frog becoming a handsome prince after being kissed by a beautiful princess. If the cards were dropped a second time from five miles higher, would the extra time it took for the second group of cards to fall provide a greater chance for the cards to spell your name? Not at all. Instead, the more time involved would tend to cause the cards to be scattered over an even greater area. Would more kisses from the princess provide a better chance for the transformation of the frog? The poor princess would just end up smelling like a toad. Time would not be the facilitator but the hinderer. Consider this when it comes to the creation of the universe and the crown of creation\u2014man.
\nJust as there are aerodynamic laws that would tend to separate the cards even more the longer they took to fall, so there are also laws of science\u2014physics, biology, chemistry, etc.\u2014which would make it more difficult, the longer the span of time, for life to suddenly appear by chance.
\nSteps in Creating the Evolutionary Ruler for Time
\nStep One: Reject God\u2019s Ruler
\nTime as we know it began when God created space, time and energy. It must be understood right from the beginning of our discussion that with the evolutionist, the issue is not time but the Creator of time. The issue is not whether the Earth is ancient, but whether the Ancient of Days will be recognized. Once the Creator of time is brought into the discussion, the rebellious suddenly want to exit, being very uncomfortable talking about the One Who exposes wicked hearts. For anyone who rejects the Creator, the only alternative is to accept a naturalistic, materialistic explanation for the origin of life.
\nIt is rather easy to see why evolutionists reject the God of creation. In so doing, evolutionism becomes their god, and such a god will not dictate any moral ethic. Evolutionism is a god which can be shaped to conform to one\u2019s own iniquities. This is the next logical step after rejecting God\u2014to produce a \u201cgolden calf\u201d that suits one\u2019s own sins.
\nA devoted evolutionist cannot be open-minded on the idea of a young Earth, because evolutionism requires vast amounts of time. Evolutionists don\u2019t ask, \u201cHow old is the Earth and universe?\u201d Their question is: \u201cHow is the universe and Earth old?\u201d They have already determined that the Earth has to be extremely old because that is the only way that evolutionism supposedly can work. There is absolutely no place for God in the humanist\u2019s heart, for he desires to sit on the throne throughout all eternity.
\nStep Two: Find a Long Pole and Make Notches on It
\nOnce a person has rejected God and His Word, then he must look for another ruler by which to determine morality, origin and purpose. Contemplating one\u2019s own existence, one must also contemplate the origins and age of the Earth. The ruler evolutionists chose for the Earth\u2019s age is the hypothetical geological column. It supposedly represents the entire geological history of planet Earth. (See fig. #4.) Names and ages (notches) were assigned to the various layers of rock. As previously mentioned, this column exists nowhere except in evolutionists\u2019 imaginations and textbooks. (The numerous problems and contradictions associated with the evolutionary geological column will be covered in a subsequent volume of the Creation Science series on creation geology.)
\nFigure #4. THE IMAGINARY RULER OF TIME<\/p>\n
Step Three: Grow Your Own Tree of Life
\nIn the Garden of Eden, God placed the Tree of Life\u2014a symbol of Christ. God\u2019s Word tells us that had Adam and Eve eaten of this tree, they would have lived forever (Gen 3:22). Today this Tree is Jesus. Whoever eats of Him will live forever (John 6); those who refuse Him attempt to grow their own tree of life. (See fig. #5.)
\nThe evolutionary community has attempted to grow their own tree of life\u2014the evolutionary geological column. It involves a detailed theory which not only speculates how long it took each layer of the Earth to form, but which life-form came first, second, third, and so on, moving up the ladder of life from the one-celled creature to the most complex life-form\u2014man. It is the tree of life from which evolutionists partake daily. It is known in scripture as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eating of its fruit leads to death (Gen. 3:1\u20135). (See fig. #6.)
\nFigure #5. THE EVOLUTIONARY TREE OF THE KNOWLEDGE OF GOOD AND EVIL<\/p>\n
After speculating which life-form came first, which came second, etc., it became necessary for evolutionists to try to figure out how long it took each life-form to evolve into its perfected state, as well as how long it took each species of animal to evolve into a totally new and different species. Guesstimation was necessary in assigning ages to each life form and its evolution. This tree might be better dubbed, as Harold Hill titled his book, \u201cFrom Goo to You by Way of the Zoo.\u201d
\nHow Old is the Earth, or How is the Earth Old?
\nThe question evolutionists seek to answer is not. How old is the Earth? but How is the Earth old? Evolutionists do not look for ways to determine how old the universe, solar system and the Earth are; rather they look for evidence to confirm their theory that the universe, solar system and the Earth are billions of years old. When any evidence is found suggesting that the Earth is young, it is disregarded, ignored, or discarded.
\nThe evolutionist is not searching for truth, because it just might bring him face to face with Someone Who truly bothers him.
\nFigure #6. THE FRUIT OF EVOLUTIONISM<\/p>\n
There are over 80 ways (clocks) to date the age of the universe, the solar system and the Earth. Nearly every clock indicates a young creation. We covered 30 of these clocks in the previous volume entitled The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe.
\nNATURE\u2019S CLOCKS
\nCLOCK INDICATES
\nAGE OF EARTH
\n1. A whale on its tale
\nEarth\u2019s layers formed swiftly
\n2. The bulging Earth
\n500,000 years max.
\n3. The magnetic Earth
\n10,000 years max.
\n4. The Earth\u2019s core
\n10,000 years max.
\n5. The oceans\u2019 elements:<\/p>\n
a. 29 elements
\n10,000 years or less
\nb. 8 elements
\n100,000 years or less
\n6. Coral formations
\n5,000 years
\n7. River deltas
\n4,500 years
\n8. Ocean sediments
\n100,000 years max.
\n9. Niagara Falls
\n5,000 years
\n10. Mountain erosion
\n14 million years max.
\n11. Soil production
\n10,000 years
\n12. Oil pressure
\n10,000 years max.
\n13. Meteorite matter
\nA few thousand years
\n14. The redwoods
\n5,000 years
\n15. Cave formations
\nA few thousand years
\n16. Radiohalos
\nCreation was instant
\n17. Population statistics
\n5,000 years
\nAGE OF MOON
\n18. Lunar dust
\nSeveral thousands of years
\n19. Lunar mountain erosion
\nSeveral thousands of years
\n20. The receding moon
\n1 milion years max.
\nAGE OF SUN
\n21. The shrinking sun
\n1 million years max.
\nAGE OF SOLAR SYSTEM
\n22. Solar vacuum cleaner
\n10,000 years max.
\n23. Comets
\n10,000 years max.
\n24. Hot planets
\nA few thousand years
\n25. Saturn\u2019s rings
\nA few thousand years
\n26. Hot ringed planets
\nA few thousand years
\nAGE OF UNIVERSE
\n27. Hot stars
\nA few thousand years max.
\n28. Sirius B
\nA few thousand years
\n29. Galaxy clusters
\n2\u20134 million years
\nAGE OF LIFE
\n30. M.I.T. and evolutionism
\nNot enough time in 10 billion years.
\nOnly a few of the 80 plus clocks can be interpreted to indicate an ancient creation. These few are the ones that evolutionists cherish and cling to because they appear to support the immense ages they so forcefully adhere to. We will take a close look at a few of these sacred clocks in this volume. Remember, the question that directs the research of the evolutionist is not, How old is the Earth?, but How is the Earth old?
\nChapter Two
\nGuessing the Fat Man\u2019s Age
\nThe Guessing Game Continues
\nAfter considering the suggested age of 4.6 billion years made by evolutionists for the Earth, we now will consider their staggering speculations for the age of the entire universe.
\nHow do evolutionists arrive at the immense ages they claim for the universe? One way evolutionists attempt to validate their theory of an ancient creation is by using the appearance of the universe to determine its age. They insist that the largeness of the universe means it is very old. That is kind of like saying the larger the person, the older he is, or the deeper the canyon, the more ancient it is. Makes good sense, right? Wrong! In other words, evolutionists estimate that the universe is between 10 and 30 billion years old (depending on with which evolutionist one is speaking), is based on the size of the universe. Such a spread of time\u201410\u201330 billion years\u2014should immediately cause suspicion and should indicate the foolishness of trying to determine the universe\u2019s age, let alone its size. Actually there is no absolute way to determine the size of the universe. Nevertheless, evolutionists use their assumptions regarding its size to try to determine its age. As previously pointed out, age is supposedly the essential ingredient for evolutionism to work. However, their methods for determining the universe\u2019s age can be compared to having one\u2019s weight guessed at a side show at the carnival.
\nI\u2019m a Winner! (See fig. #7.)
\nSome years ago I visited the annual State Fair of Texas. There are always 1001 side shows and vendors beckoning passers-by to come and try their luck on a chance of a lifetime. At one particular booth and for only 50c, one had the chance of winning the grand prize\u2014a giant stuffed Godzilla, which would be the envy of every neighborhood kid and the horror of the mom in whose home it ended up.
\nIn my youthfulness, I couldn\u2019t resist the invitation, especially since the sign read, \u201cEveryone Wins.\u201d Each contestant had a choice to have his age or his weight guessed. It seemed the odds were a little more in my favor if I had the vendor guess my weight. The fellow was to try and guess my weight within three pounds. If he missed it by 10 pounds or more, I would win the grand prize. At the time I didn\u2019t realize what the odds were for winning. There was a 7-pound range to guess correctly before one could win a small consolation prize and a 21 pound range before one could win the giant Godzilla. The vendor looked me over, pinched my arm and waist to help give an indication of muscle and body fat. All the while he was bellowing for others to come and witness the event. \u201c110 pounds, now step on the scales!\u201d The scale read 115 pounds. \u201cLook! We have a winner. Who will be next? Step right up folks, and be a winner.\u201d He didn\u2019t seem bothered that he had missed my weight by 5 pounds, and after receiving my puny prize I understood why. My prize was not the Godzilla; it was a kazoo worth about a dime. Nevertheless, I felt satisfied because I had won. The reason for sharing such a comical illustration is to point out that my weight was determined by what could be seen. Even then, it was a poor guess. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose, and I finally understood that the vendor had nothing to lose, even if everyone won. Likewise, the evolutionist knows he has nothing to lose if he misses the age of the universe by 10 billion years or so. He can always just add or subtract a few zeros whenever the occasion arises.
\nFigure #7. GUESSING A FAT MAN\u2019S AGE<\/p>\n
Appearance Can Be Deceiving
\nLooks can be deceiving. Some people mature much faster than others. We all know that sun, wind and weather can age one prematurely. Genetic defects can also cause people to age more quickly than normal. For example, there is a genetic disorder called progeria (see fig. #8.)\u2014a rare aging disease that strikes children. For a severely affected child, every year he lives, his body ages about as much as a normal person does in 13 years. As mentioned in chapter one, the Earth (according to evolutionism) must have a bad case of progeria: Every 20 years its age doubles. The effects of a life of sin can also age a person more quickly than normal. A large and tall brother may be years younger than his smaller and shorter brother.
\nFigure #8. APPEARANCE CAN BE DECEIVING<\/p>\n
The point is, a person\u2019s age can be misjudged. Size, weight and even things that normally signify maturity are not necessarily accurate tools for determining age. Evolutionists have arrived at their conclusions for the age of the universe by using what appears to be its size. And they have theorized its size by using assumptions which cannot be proven. Their guesstimating techniques can be compared to a blind man attempting to determine the age of a 350-pound person with an extreme thyroid condition. The obesity that comes as a result of a genetic disorder or other bodily malfunction can affect a person during their youth or later on in life. There\u2019s no way a blind man can determine the person\u2019s age using only weight as a gauge. Since they have rejected the Bible, evolutionists are like the blind man in that they have no basis to determine the age of the universe.
\nSize Cannot Be a Factor
\nFrom a creationist point of view, the size of the universe and the age of the universe are independent. One cannot be determined using the other. To do so would be like trying to determine Adam\u2019s age just after he was created or the age of children affected with the genetic disorder progeria.
\nThe Bible does not tell us how large the universe was at creation, nor do we know what its speed of expansion was at that moment. If the universe truly is expanding, maybe originally it was expanding much faster than it is presently. Just as a child grows very rapidly during his early years and then slows down when he hits his late teens, the universe may have been expanding very quickly immediately following the moment of creation, and then slowed as time went by.
\nShort Cuts in the Heavens
\nThen there is another twist that some have proposed concerning light coming from distant stars. According to the studies of some astronomers, light may take a \u201cshortcut\u201d as it travels in deep outer space. If their theory is valid, it would not take light nearly as long to reach the Earth from outer space as is commonly believed. By the use of certain mathematical calculations, it is now speculated by some that light could reach the earth from the farthest known star in about 15 years. There are just too many variables and assumptions for absolutely determining the size of the universe. Therefore, to determine the age from the size is even more precarious.
\nA Final Staggering Thought
\nThe question at this point is where did the idea that things in space are millions and billions of light years away come from in the first place?
\nFirst, it will help many to know that a light-year is the distance light travels in a year. Traveling at 186,000 miles per second would mean it could circle our globe more than seven times in the space of a second. Since it only takes eight minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, a light-year is a huge distance.
\nSecondly, the only direct method of measuring the distance of objects in space can only establish distances to roughly 200 light-years away. This direct measurement is made by the mathematical formula known as triangulation. The way stars are measured is by recording twice the precise position of an object in the sky, six months apart, when the Earth is at opposite ends of her orbit. The resulting angles, plus the known size of the base of the triangle (the width of the Earth\u2019s orbit), allows a distance to be calculated.
\nHowever, many objects in space are obviously much further away, since there is no apparent change in their positions over a six-month period. This means that there is no direct way of measuring the distance of most of the objects we see in the sky. So evolutionists attempt to measure distance like they do the \u201cThe Fat Man\u2019s Age.\u201d The Doppler Shift is one of the methods they use, and was covered in Vol. XIII of The Creation Science Series.
\nThe Creationist Perspective
\nThe Word of God says that Adam and Eve were sudden and \u201cmature\u201d creations. They were placed in a setting that was fully developed and mature upon its creation. From a creationist viewpoint, it would be useless to try to determine the age of the Earth by examining the size of Adam and other creatures, the size of trees, amount of foliage, the depth of canyons and the size of the universe. Attempting to estimate the age of Adam and Eve just after God created them by present processes of growth would lead to a mistaken conclusion.
\nThe same is true for evolutionary attempts to date the age of the universe. To determine its age by its size would be like suggesting that the Grand Canyon of Arizona is hundreds of millions of years old because that is how long it appears to have taken the Colorado River to erode the walls down to its present level. (See fig. #9.) It has become apparent from watching the erosion that took place after the Mt. St. Helens\u2019 eruption that canyons which were thought to take hundreds and even thousands of years to form actually took only one night of massive shifting and erosion. A massive flood on the scale of Noah\u2019s could have easily eroded the walls of the Grand Canyon. (A thorough explanation of the Grand Canyon formation will be covered in a subsequent volume of the Creation Science Series.)
\nIt bears repeating that the evolutionary geological column does not exist anywhere on the earth except in the imaginations and in the textbooks of the evolutionists.
\nFigure #9. THE GRAND ILLUSION<\/p>\n
Chapter Three
\nMerry-Go-Round Reasoning
\nA Pig\u2019s Tale (See fig. #10.)
\nThe method behind evolutionary dating can be compared to the farmer who had his heart set on winning the grand prize at the county fair. It would be awarded to the one who entered the heaviest hog. The farmer figured he had a pretty good chance at taking first place. Even though he didn\u2019t have scales large enough to weigh his porker, the farmer believed it weighed at least a ton, despite his neighbors\u2019 doubts. For his skeptical friends, he rigged a makeshift scale to weigh the pig, and then invited his friends to come and see for themselves. When they arrived, the farmer proclaimed, \u201cSee, I told you that the pig weighed in at around a ton.\u201d However, his neighbors were not convinced. What they found was a pig strapped to one end of a log and a heavy rock resting at the other end. The log was balanced over a large boulder. One of the fellows asked how much the rock resting on the end of the log weighed. The farmer quickly answered, \u201cCan\u2019t you see it weighs right at a ton because the log is balanced over the boulder.\u201d
\nFigure #10. HEAVENLY HOG HALLUCINATION<\/p>\n
Can you see the farmer\u2019s logic? Of course not; but it is easy to see his foolishness. He reasons that the pig must weigh a ton because the rock weighs a ton, and the rock must weigh a ton because the pig weighs a ton. The proof that both weigh a ton is that the log is perfectly balanced over the boulder. With logic like that how could the farmer\u2019s friends argue? (See fig. #11.)
\nIt is easy to see the foolishness and error of circular reasoning. You base the weight of the pig on the rock and the weight of the rock on the pig. Evolutionists embrace the same logic\u2014or lack thereof. They argue that the evolutionary process is extremely slow, but, since it is evident that evolutionism has occurred, the Earth must be quite old. In other words, the Earth must be old because evolutionism is true, and evolutionism has occurred because an ancient Earth provides the time for such to occur. Such reasoning is a stranger to logic. Furthermore, evolutionary geologists (scientists who study rocks) date rocks by fossils, and evolutionary paleontologists (scientists who study fossil bones) date fossils by rocks.
\nFigure #11. MERRY-GO-ROUND REASONING<\/p>\n
Circular Reasoning
\nDr. Ronald West of Kansas State University states:
\nContrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory \u2026 which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.
\nA Case of Boney Baloney (See fig. #12.)
\nSuppose you are hiking in the mountains and you stumble upon a large bone sticking out of the side of a hill. You contact the local officials and they send out some experts from the local university: A geologist who studies rock formations and a paleontologist who studies fossil bones. They, with their teams of students, examine the find and excavate it. After several months you have an opportunity to visit with the experts and ask some questions. First you talk with the paleontologist and ask, \u201cSir, what kind of fossil was it that I found?\u201d The paleontologist replies that it was a dinosaur fossil. Your second question refers to the age of the bone. The response is that it was dated as being 80 million years old. You then ask, \u201cHow do you know that? Did you use some radiometric dating method?\u201d \u201cOh, no, that wasn\u2019t necessary,\u201d says the paleontologist. \u201cSince we are very familiar with this type of dinosaur fossil, I simply asked a geologist friend of mine about the type of rock that it was found in and he told me that the rock was cretaceous rock and cretaceous rock is dated at 80 million years old.\u201d
\nFigure #12. THE CASE OF BONEY BALONEY<\/p>\n
After thanking the paleontologist for his time, you meet with the geologist to see how he determined the age of the rock. \u201cSir, how did you come to your conclusion that the rock was 80 million years old? Did you use some type of radiometric dating method?\u201d The geologist replies, \u201cOh, no, that wasn\u2019t necessary because we are very familiar with this type of strata. I just asked a paleontologist friend of mine what kind of fossil bone it was, and he told me that it was a dinosaur that lived 80 million years ago. Since the dinosaur is 80 million years old, the rock around it must also be at least 80 million years old.\u201d
\nReferral to the Charts
\nCan you see their reasoning? The rock is believed to be 80 million years old because it contains a dinosaur bone. The dinosaur bone is considered to be 80 million years old because it is found in 80-million-year-old rock. This is plainly a case of circular reasoning. The rock was dated by the fossil it contained, and the fossil was dated by the rock in which it was found. In reality, they have no idea how old the dinosaur or the rock are. (See fig. #13.) The evolutionary community rely heavily on their imaginary evolutionary charts.
\nHonest Confessions
\nDo evolutionists really do that? Yes! Carl Dunbar, a geologist and evolutionist, in his book Historical Geology admits that circular reasoning is involved in the dating of fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils.
\nFigure #13. EVOLUTIONARY CIRCULAR REASONING<\/p>\n
A few years back the Encyclopedia Britannica, in the section on fossil dating, contained an admission of circular reasoning in dating fossils by rocks and rocks by fossils. It concluded that the reasoning seemed so consistent, it must be correct. To the farmer, his pig weighed a ton because it seemed so consistent with his theory. In reality, there is not a single valid scientific dating method that can be used to determine the age of fossils or the age of rock strata.
\nDoesn\u2019t radiometric dating (RMD) confirm the ages of the rocks and fossils?
\nWe shall now enter evolutionism\u2019s \u201choly of holies\u201d and investigate their \u201csacred cow.\u201d
\nPART II
\nA CLOSER LOOK AT EVOLUTIONISM\u2019S SACRED COW THE DISMANTLING BEGINS
\nChapter 4: Evolutionism\u2019s Sacred Cow\u2014RMD: Radiometric Dating
\nChapter 5: What is RMD and How is it Supposed to Work?
\nChapter 6: The Missing Foundation of RMD: \u201cHoly Cow, the Heifer Has No Legs\u201d
\nChapter 7: \u201cHoly Cow, the Golden Image is Fading\u201d (The Rest of the Story)
\nChapter 8: Why RMD Doesn\u2019t Work
\nChapter 9: When a Dusty Clock Strikes \u201c13,\u201d What Time is it?
\nChapter 10: The Case of the Disfigured Hourglass
\nChapter 11: The Missing Legs of Evolutionism\u2019s Sacred Cow
\nChapter Four
\nEvolutionism\u2019s Sacred Cow\u2014RMD: Radiometric Dating
\nEntering the Evolutionary \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d (See fig. #14.)
\nNow we have come to the evolutionary \u201choly of holies\u201d where we shall enter and gaze upon the \u201cgolden image\u201d referred to as RMD (radiometric dating). Radiometric dating is not some computerized dating agency on the radio; however, it may have about as much credibility. More and more scientists are suggesting that RMD stands for ROYAL MEANINGLESS DATA. Evolutionists have worshipped RMD as a god. RMD has been the sacrosanct holy cow of the evolutionary community.
\nAlthough RMD has been hallowed by the evolutionary community in the past, its glorious illustrious reputation has been fading rapidly in recent years. There are more and more discrepancies associated with its conclusions. In other words, many fossil and rock samples submitted for RMD testing have yielded erroneous conclusions, or should we say ROYAL MEANINGLESS DATA.
\nFigure #14. EVOLUTIONISM\u2019S HOLY OF HOLIES<\/p>\n
Evolutionists have led the public to believe that the dates assigned to rocks, fossils, and the layers of the geological column have been assigned or at least confirmed by some RMD method. The truth of the matter is that the assigned dates were in all the evolutionary text books more than a hundred years before RMD ever came into existence. RMD didn\u2019t come into existence until the 1940\u2019s; the arbitrary dates of the evolutionary geological column were assigned in the early 1800\u2019s. Thus, the evolutionists have made their own ruler of time just as my son Golan did, as I shared previously. Golan wanted so much to be tall that he made his own ruler. Likewise, evolutionists wanted so much for the universe to be ancient, they devised their own ruler to \u201cprove\u201d that it is old.
\nThe \u201cHoly Cow\u201d Still Remains an Untouchable
\nRMD has been used by evolutionists since 1947 to attempt to confirm their original guesstimations of ages assigned to the evolutionary geological column. The geologic column was the primary basis evolutionists used in determining ages of rocks and fossils until the development of RMD methods in 1947.
\nEven today, there is a strong tendency to compare all dates and ages determined from RMD methods with the assigned \u201cages\u201d of the evolutionary geological chart on the laboratory wall. Although presented as objective and reliable, the results of RMD are always rejected if they do not agree with the chart.
\nWhen an evolutionist wants to date a rock he sends it to a RMD lab. However, the lab will not begin to submit the rock for radioactive dating unless the evolutionist sends in a form stating exactly how old he believes the rock is. The lab technicians then have a target to shoot for, and will continue to put the rock through testing using a combination of technical apparatus until they come up with the date for which they are looking. This was the method used with the rocks brought back from the moon.
\nIn reality, there is not a single valid scientific dating method that can be used to determine the age of fossils, and there is not a single valid dating method to determine the age of rock strata in which fossils are found.
\nMisconceptions regarding Radiometric Dating?
\nWhen the public hears the term radiometric dating, they assume this is a process by which a rock or fossil is dated by very expensive highly sophisticated electronic equipment. It seems that when one hears technological terms accompanied by the word expensive, it means that such equipment must in fact be meticulously accurate and 100% factual, especially when specific numbers are used such as 257, 163, or 489 million years.
\n\u201cThe Microwave Oven\u201d (See fig. #15.)
\nMany people have the misconception that the scientist places a rock in something that looks like a microwave oven, pushes a few buttons, and a digital date is displayed on a screen. But it doesn\u2019t work this way. The \u201cmicrowave oven\u201d (if we can use this expression in our discussion) does not date a rock, but simply gives a mathematical formula by which a scientist can guesstimate the age of a rock. This formula resembles a thermometer without numbers.
\nFigure #15. THE MICROWAVE MISCONCEPTION<\/p>\n
The Thermometer without Numbers (See fig. #16.)
\nFigure #16. THE CASE OF THE MISSING NUMBERS<\/p>\n
The mathematic formula the scientist devises is like a thermometer without numbers on it. The invention of the thermometer came about as a result of the discovery of a liquid substance which tended to rise in a thin glass cylinder when heated and fall when cooled. Of course there were no numbers associated with the rising and falling of the substance. Those were determined by Daniel Fahrenheit who made a mark on the tube at the point where water boiled and attached the number 212. At the point where the substance fell when water turned to ice, Mr. Fahrenheit affixed the number 32. These numbers still remain on the Fahrenheit thermometer. Other numbers could have been chosen\u2014such as C for the point where water freezes and 100 where water boils. And this is exactly what has been done with the Celsius thermometer because it is based on a simpler system. William Kelvin affixed the numbers to read 373\u00b0 K. for the boiling point of water and 273\u00b0 K. for the point at which water freezes. Each man had his reason for assigning the numbers he did. (See fig. #17.) The point is that the numbers were added once a substance was discovered to rise and fall.
\nRMD is very much like the thermometer without numbers on it. Before the scientist can arrive at a date, he must figure out what the numbers on the scale are to be. It is the evolulutionist who has supplied the numbers for the thermometer. This method is rather like the one my son Golan used. Evolutionists placed the numbers on the thermometer according to what would go along with their theory. In other words, they decide the temperature they want. They have made their own clock.
\nFigure #17. VARYING DEGREES<\/p>\n
The evolutionist is like a child who is confined to bed by his mother because of a slight temperature. If the child could somehow change the numbers on the thermometer to read 98.6 rather than 100.1, his mom would let him go outside and play. The evolutionist also wants numbers that will support the lifestyle he so desires, one that doesn\u2019t have to submit to God nor answer to His timeless morality outlined in the Bible.
\nRMD\u2019s numbers come from the evolutionary \u201cruler\u201d for interpretation of the fossil record known as the geological column. So, RMD is not an outside confirmation of evolutionism but rather an \u201cin house\u201d substantiation. In other words, the dates given by the \u201cmicrowave oven\u201d were previously assigned to the rock before it went into the \u201coven.\u201d
\nFor evolutionists, the Earth has to be 4.6 billion years old because that is how long they have decided is necessary for the theory of evolutionism supposedly to work. RMD has truly become the \u201csacred cow\u201d of evolutionism. The only alternative is a special creation created supernaturally by a supernatural God and that is clearly unacceptable to the atheistic humanist who wants to be god over his own life and time.
\nChapter Five
\nWhat is RMD and How is it Supposed to Work?
\nThe Meaning of Radioactive
\nThe term radioactive simply means to become unstable, somewhat like a tin can can that is suddenly hit and knocked on its edge. The can becomes unstable.
\nBecause of gravity, the tin can wants to return to its previous stable position. Likewise, radioactive elements are unstable elements and want to return to being stable elements. To do this requires time. A spinning tin can stay on its edge only a few seconds. For some radioactive elements only a few seconds pass before they return to a stable position. Others, like C-14, require thousands of years. And still others, such as uranium, require billions of years to become stable, which takes place as they decay.
\nThe Decay Process
\nRMD is not very difficult to understand. It involves a decay process. The decay process is part of the natural laws of nature in which all things tend to crumble, fall apart and deteriorate over time. (See fig. #18.) In scripture, this is known as the curse mentioned in Genesis 3. The decay process in radioactive elements is somewhat like the decomposition of a piece of fruit such as a banana. After being picked, a banana turns from green to yellow, then to black. It decays and decomposes after a time. (See fig. #19.) RMD involves the decay process within various radioactive elements such as uranium, which is found in rocks and fossils. This decay process simply involves the unstable radioactive element becoming a stable non-radioactive element (called the daughter element). When a radioactive particle decays, it changes into the daughter non-radioactive element. It changes from a non-stable position to one that is stable. Although the decay time for the banana is only a few days, the decay time for some radioactive elements is billions of years.
\nAtomic Bullets and Radioactive Decay
\nDuring the decay process, atomic bullets (radiation) are being shot out at the speed of light. (See fig. #20.) RMD involves one kind of material (known as radioactive material like uranium) changing into a completely different kind of material. The radioactive element uranium turns into the radioactive element thorium and then into non-radioactive lead, somewhat like the banana changes from green to yellow to black. (See fig. #21.)
\nFigure #18. THE LAW OF DECAY<\/p>\n
Figure #19. RADIOACTIVE BANANA DECAY<\/p>\n
Figure #20. STAGES OF DECAY<\/p>\n
This radioactive material goes about changing by throwing off atomic particles from the nucleus of each atom. This tiny particle, which flies through the air, is known as radiation. It is like an atomic bullet, and if it hits a person it will cause damage to a cell in his body in the same way a bullet from a gun will cause damage to a body if it hits it. If a person is hit by a lot of radiation, say from an atomic bomb blast, then a myriad of atomic bullets will hit him. They will penetrate his body and cause damage to millions of his cells, which can bring about death. This radiation is known as radioactive decay. The rate of decay or change can be measured. These measurements act as a kind of clock.
\nFigure #21. ATOMIC BULLETS<\/p>\n
The nuclear disaster that took place in Chernobyl (Soviet Union) several years ago resulted in massive amounts of atomic bullets being released in all directions. They struck millions of people\u2014some with small doses and others with large doses of radiation.
\nRadioactive Elements
\nAlthough most everyone has heard about the element uranium and its associated radioactive properties, there are several other types of radioactive elements: radioactive carbon 14 (C-14), radioactive potassium and radioactive rubidium. Each of these radioactive elements are a type of clock. Each runs at a different speed, rather like identical hourglasses having different sized granules of sand flowing from the top to the bottom.
\nWhen an atom of radioactive potassium ejects one of these tiny radioactive atomic particles, it is no longer potassium; it has become argon. When radioactive rubidium ejects an atomic particle, it is no longer rubidium; it has become strontium. And likewise, radioactive carbon 14 turns into non-radioactive carbon 12. (See fig. #22.)
\nFigure #22. ATOMIC CLOCKS<\/p>\n
As each radioactive element decays, the nonradioactive element that results is called a byproduct or the daughter product (in effect the child of the parent element). No longer radioactive, it is now known as a stable element. It does not decay any further.
\nIn the case of certain elements, the decay series takes several steps. Uranium, for example, decays several times to radioactive elements before it finally becomes a non-radioactive element, lead.
\nSome radioactive elements decay (change) at a very slow rate. Scientists have tried to calculate the age of fossils and rocks by measuring the amount of radioactive elements within them. They then calculate how long it would take for the radioactive material\u2014such as carbon 14, uranium or rubidium\u2014to turn into their non-radioactive counter parts such as carbon 12, lead, or strontium. This figure gives scientists what they believe is the approximate age of the fossil or rock. It sounds so simple. But hold on because this \u201choly cow\u201d doesn\u2019t have legs on which to stand. There is much more involved, which makes RMD exceedingly unreliable as we shall see in the following chapters.
\nUsing Radioactive Decay to Tell Time
\nHow do scientists use radioactive decay to tell time? Picture in your mind an hourglass. (See fig. #23.) We use an hourglass to tell time by comparing the amount of sand in the top to the amount in the bottom. If about half of the sand is in the bottom, we know that approximately 30 minutes have passed. To draw an analogy to radiometric dating, we could say that uranium begins in the top of the hourglass and as it falls to the bottom it turns into lead. As each grain of uranium passes through the waist of the hourglass, it discharges an atomic particle and falls to the bottom as a non-radioactive particle of lead. Scientists measure how old a rock is by calculating how much uranium (uranium atoms) it contains relative to how much lead (lead atoms). (See fig. #24.) The speed of decay varies with each radioactive element. Scientists have determined the rate of decay for each element and have assigned a period of time to that rate. The time required for half of the atoms of a radioactive element to change into its non-radioactive counterpart is known as a half-life.
\nFigure 23. CONVENTIONAL HOURGLASS<\/p>\n
What is a Half-Life?
\nThe concept of half-life is important to understand at this point. Half-life can be compared with eating away at a chocolate cake.
\nFigure #24. THE URANIUM HOURGLASS<\/p>\n
Suppose you start eating a cake at 12 noon. Every 15 minutes you eat half of what is left of the cake. At 12:15 half of the cake has disappeared, and half still remains on the plate. By 12:30 you eat half of the remaining cake; now only one fourth of the cake remains. By the end of another 15 minutes you eat half of the remaining cake, leaving only \u00bd of the original cake on the plate. With every passing 15 minutes you eat half of the remaining cake. (See fig. #25.)
\nThis is referred to as half-life. In our analogy, the cake has a half-life of 15 minutes; with the passing of every 15 minutes, half of the remaining cake disappears, until there are only crumbs left on the plate.
\nScientists compute the half-life of radioactive element C-14 at 5,730 years. Calculating C-14\u2019s present rate of disintegration, scientists estimate that it takes 5,730 years for half of the C-14 particles to disappear. After another 5,730 years, another half will have disappeared. (See fig. #26.) Using the half-life method, scientists calculate the half-life of uranium to be 4.5 billion years.
\nFigure #25. THE HALF-LIFE OF A CHOCOLATE CAKE<\/p>\n
Figure #26. THE HALF LIFE OF THE RADIOACTIVE ELEMENT C-14<\/p>\n
The \u201cHalf-Life\u201d of \u201cthe Old Man\u201d
\nHow relevant this decay process is to the growth and development of our Christian character. As we allow the Holy Spirit to help us throw off the old nature, we take on a new nature\u2014the nature of Christ. What often happens is that as we are throwing off the old nature (usually by \u201cradioactive\u201d words), it usually hits others and hurts them. Of course, in time, the original unstable nature becomes solid and stable, radiating a new quality\u2014the Holy Spirit\u2019s love. For most people, it takes about half of a lifetime to become a stable Christian.
\nTherefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us (Heb. 12:1).
\nAnd we, who with unveiled faces all reflect the Lord\u2019s glory, are being transformed into his likeness with ever-increasing glory, which comes from the Lord, who is the Spirit (II Cor. 3:18).
\nChaper Six
\nThe Missing Foundation of RMD: \u201cHoly Cow, the Heifer Has No Legs\u201d
\nNews Release: NYC Skyscraper Found with No Foundation
\nCan you imagine a 100-story building without any foundation? Think about the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City. (See fig. #27.) You will never read of such a thing\u2014unless you\u2019re reading some tabloid magazine. The foundation of a building provides stability. The foundation assures that the building is safe and sound. A building 100 stories tall requires a foundation that goes 10\u201320 stories below the surface of the ground and one that is properly anchored into solid bedrock. With a solidly constructed base, a building can withstand assaults from the powerful forces of nature such as hurricanes and earthquakes. It may even withstand the destructive forces of evil men\u2014like the 1993 bomb attack that rocked the Trade Towers and left a gaping hole six stories deep. Had there not been a solid foundation, this assault would have turned the World Trade Center into a heap of rubble.
\nFigure #27. THE WORLD TRADE CENTER TWIN TOWERS\u2014NEW YORK CITY<\/p>\n
No city planning committee would approve the blueprints of a building, let alone a major skyscraper, if the framework did not include extensive and reliable plans for a solid foundation\u2014plans considered sound by reputable engineers.
\nSuppose a contractor submits plans to the Los Angeles City Council for the construction of a new 50-story City Hall. During a meeting, the contractor and architect unveil a beautiful, detailed model of the building. Then by way of a computer simulation, they take you on a walk through the entire building. The image allows you to view every room of the entire building. You are able to see every part of the structure from the inside, from the outside and from any angle. Every aspect of the entire building is viewed to everyone\u2019s satisfaction.
\nAfter the beauty and magnificent architecture are seen, the members of the council begin to ask some very serious questions. They are concerned about the stability of the building since Los Angeles is located in a region that is notorious for earthquakes. However, the contractor and architect evade their questions and continue to focus in on the ascetics, landscaping, decor, economics, community accessibility, occupancy level, shops and restaurants, office and conference availability, etc.
\nThe construction engineer barely touches on the issue of the foundation\u2019s stability and its ability to withstand a major earthquake. When confronted by the City Council, the contractors comments are assumptions like, \u201cI\u2019ve been constructing buildings for 50 years and I\u2019ve never had one collapse yet.\u201d Or \u201cWhen one of my older buildings was being torn down to make way for a new one, it took the demolition crew two months to knock it down.\u201d Or \u201cI know it will stand because I believe it will. Besides, look at my background\u2014my degrees, my honors, my multimillion dollar corporation and equipment. And look at all of the famous people I know. Why, I have even been featured on the cover of Time, Newsweek, National Geographic and other prestigious magazines.\u201d
\nEven if the man has built a thousand buildings in the past, no City Council member in his right mind would ever accept such a proposal to build a 50-story City Hall, no matter how beautiful it may look, when the blueprints contain nothing but mere assumptions regarding the stability and reliability of its foundation.
\nAre Evolutionists Out of Their Minds?
\nEvolutionsts have followed suit with the above illustration. RMD is just like a 50-story building with no reliable foundation. Evolutionists have constructed an elaborate edifice \u201cabove ground level\u201d over the last 50 years. It has become the edifice for dating the age of the Earth. (See fig. #28.) However, this complex structure is built entirely upon very unstable materials\u2014presumptions and assumptions. When creationists, like the City Council members, point out that the foundation is based on mere assumptions, evolutionists ignore them. They continue to accept their assumptions on blind faith, in spite of the mountains of evidence overwhelmingly declaring that the entire system doesn\u2019t have a leg to stand on. In fact, the RMD \u201cbuilding\u201d collapsed some time ago. Yet in spite of the rubble that surrounds them, evolutionists go right on believing that RMD is a viable and useful clock for dating the age of Creation.
\nNo matter what the evidence reveals, they cannot accept it because without lots of time, the entire tower of evolutionism becomes a heap of rubble. Therefore evolutionists keep their RMD clock\u2014even though it has long since been shown to be broken and incapable of keeping proper time. The evolutionary community remains barricaded behind the sacred walls of its \u201cHoly of Holies\u201d and continues to worship its \u201cGolden Image,\u201d an image that has no legs and is based on nothing but wishful thinking.
\nFigure #28. THE MISSING FOUNDATION<\/p>\n
RMD has no foundation, but rather rests on a trainload of assumptions.
\nChapter Seven
\n\u201cHoly Cow, the Golden Image is Fading\u201d (The Rest of the Story)
\nFigure #29. FADING SACRED COWS<\/p>\n
Let\u2019s Make a Date
\nRMD has been presented to the public as a foolproof system for dating rocks. Its results are offered as indisputable evidence for the ancient ages required by evolutionism. The process sounds so simple\u2014one reason evolutionists are so confident about its results. But there is another side of the story that most people never hear. In other words, RMD is just not that simple.
\nScience as the public understands it and science as the professional scientist understands it are often very different. By the time scientific information reaches the public, it has been simplified and dogmatized. The careful language of the scientist, the qualifications and conditions, have been carefully removed. The information is presented to the public as certain and indisputable.
\nDisagreeable Dates Discarded
\nInterestingly, scientists know that RMD often gives wrong dates. For instance, when the same rock is submitted to two radiometric dating methods (for example, by both uranium-lead and rubidium-strontium methods), the results of the two tests often differ by millions of years. Or, when one radiometric method is used to analyze various parts of the same rock, again the results often differ immensely.
\nIn the Grand Canyon, there is a lava formation known as the Cardenas Lavas that has been tested by a couple of radiometric methods. Scientists Mckee and Noble first used the RMD potassium-argon method. The results showed the flow to be 860 million years old. When they used the rubidium-strontium method, the results indicated the age of the flow to be 1.16 billion years. Do you notice any difference? There is a discrepancy of some 300 million years. The methods used can hardly be considered an accurate way of determining the age of lava, let alone the age of the Earth. But what\u2019s a few hundred million years?
\nAnother example of miscalculation comes from Nigeria, where samples from the same basalt rock were dated by four RMD methods (clocks). The results were as follows:
\n1. Conventional method by looking at the evolutionary chart: 2\u201326 million years old.
\n2. Fission Tracks: 30 million years maximum.
\n3. Potassium-argon: 95 million years.
\n4. Uranium-helium: 750 million years.
\nWhy do the results vary so much? The answer is very simple: The evolutionary clocks are not accurate.
\nThe literature on geochronology reports these as discordant or anomalous dates, which means abnormal or contaminated and therefore not acceptable. Evolutionists admit this:
\nIn conventional interpretation of potassium-argon age data, it is common to discard ages which are substantially too high or too low compared with the rest of the group or with other available data such as the geologic time scale. The discrepancies between the rejected and the accepted are arbitrarily attributed to excess or loss of argon.
\nIn common, everyday English, the above quote simply says, \u201cIf we don\u2019t like the date, we throw it out.\u201d The common evolutionary explanation given for discarding dates which do not harmonize is that the researcher may have allowed his rock to become contaminated by outside matter or simply miscalculated. Another possible explanation or excuse given is that the rock may have been contaminated while still in the ground. What has truly been contaminated are the hearts and minds of the evolutionists who have hardened their hearts against God and His Word.
\nIt is crucial for the survival of evolutionism to adjust the dates. They must fit with the mythological geological chart which hangs in the evolutionist laboratory.
\nA Closer Look at the Dating of the Moon Rocks
\nThe Apollo 11 mission brought moon rocks and soil samples. They were submitted to various radiometric dating tests. Several different dates were produced ranging from 2.3 billion to 8.2 billion years. However, these were not the dates for which evolutionists were looking. They were not searching for how old the moon was, but rather how is the moon old? In other words, they had already determined it was old\u20144.6 billion years old\u2014and were trying to prove it. So the rocks were chemically adjusted until they produced the desired age of 4.6 billion years, the age that evolutionists had previously determined for the moon. This adjustment is called calibration with \u201cgeologic accordance.\u201d In other words, they set the clock to the time that they wanted.
\nWhile evolutionary geochronologists (men who \u201cmicrowave\u201d the rocks) don\u2019t admit this to the public, their own literature explains the truth. In their book Potassium Argon Dating; Principles, Techniques and Applications to Geochronology, authors G. Brent Dalrymple and Marvin A. Lanphere write:
\nIf the potassium-argon ages of a group of rocks agree with the stratigraphic sequence determined on the basis of physical relationships or fossil evidence, then the probability is good that the radiometric ages are reliable.\u2026 For single age measurements of units that either overlie or underlie beds containing fossils, the fossil evidence only places an upper or lower limit on the age determination.
\nIn other words, if the results agree with current evolutionary theories, the radiometric date is considered accurate. If the date doesn\u2019t agree, then it is considered inaccurate. This is not an independent outside confirmation of evolutionary dates, and it is certainly not science. If all the results must agree with current evolutionary theories or be discarded, then no dates that disagree with evolutionism will ever be accepted. This is not science; it is rather science fiction. Why do evolutionists do this? The answer is simple. Evolutionists are not attempting to answer the question, \u201cHow old is the Earth?\u201d Their question is: \u201cWhat dating methods can we use in order to show that the Earth is old?\u201d
\nIf the earth was found to be quite young, evolutionists would have to acknowledge the Bible is true and is the Word of God. To the evolutionist, such an acknowledgement means surrendering the heart to Someone other than self, and that is unacceptable.
\nChapter Eight
\nWhy RMD Doesn\u2019t Work
\nWin a Free Trip to Hawaii
\nA local clock store is having its 100-year anniversary. As a part of the celebration the store manager plans to give away a free trip to Hawaii, all expenses paid. The merchant will award the free trip to anyone who can answer correctly a riddle about time. Each person who answers the riddle, correctly will have a chance to win the trip, but first will have to provide a correct explanation as to why the answer selected is the right one.
\nThe riddle involves a table with three hourglasses on it. One hourglass is almost totally full on the top, the second is half full, and the third is completely drained. (See fig. #30.) The question submitted to each contestant is, \u201cHow long has the table been situated in its present location: 5 minutes, 30 minutes or over an hour?\u201d
\nEach hourglass gives a different clue. But which gives the correct answer? The first hourglass indicates that it has been there only for 5 minutes because most of its sand still remains in the upper half. The second hourglass indicates that the table has been positioned for at least half an hour because half of the sand still remains in the upper half. The third hourglass reveals that the table has been in its location for over an hour because the sand in the hourglass has completely drained. Only one can hold the correct answer. Each contestant has 1 out of 3 chances to guess the correct answer. No matter which hourglass a person selects, he may give a reasonable answer as to why he believes it to be correct. Since no contestant was there to see when the table was set into position, each answer is just as legitimate as the next. Here is where the real difficulty lies.
\nFigure #30. THE RIDDLE OF THE THREE HOURGLASSES<\/p>\n
There seems to be no sure way to solve the riddle, although each person may give a reasonable-sounding explanation. This is the same dilemma that occurs when RMD is used in an attempt to determine the age of a rock or a fossil.
\nNo matter which answer they choose, and no matter how convincing the explanation as to why it is the correct answer, there is no way to prove whether it is right or wrong.
\nLet\u2019s return to the riddle involving the three hourglasses on the table. The correct answer is number one. The table had been situated in the room for only five minutes when the participants entered the room.
\nThe table was carried into the room by employees just five minutes before. The first hourglass was turned over so that it was just beginning a new hour. The second hourglass was allowed to let half the sand go through, then laid on its side until just before the contest began, then turned at the last moment. The sand lying at the bottom of the third hourglass had been there for a long time.
\nThus only the first hourglass indicated correctly the length of time the table had been in the room. The point is, there really was no way for anyone to know for sure how long the table had been positioned there. Even if a person made the correct choice, it would still be impossible to confirm the accuracy of the choice.
\nIt would have been just as reasonable to select number two or three with the explanation that someone had been tampering with the two not selected.
\nThe Moral of Our Story
\nWhat do we learn from this riddle? That we can\u2019t interpret the data an hourglass gives us unless we know how full it was to begin with. We cannot be sure that someone is not tampering with the hourglasses. An hourglass gives us a correct idea of time only when we know what the initial conditions were. This then is the dilemma when using RMD. Something could have been tampering with the RMD clock in the past, and the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case.
\nAs for the merchant, since no one was able to give a correct explanation and win the free trip to Hawaii, the owner ended up taking the trip himself. Fortunately, he was able to attract a lot of business and customers during the contest.
\nNo one is able to give an accurate explanation of how RMD works, either. Therefore, the evolutionists have provided an answer that benefits them. And, they have been able to allure a lot of business and disciples during their show\u2014people who buy their books, produce their films and provide lavish grants.
\nVery soon the Owner of time will appear and reveal the correct age of Creation to all. Those living according to His timetable will be given the gift of living forever. Those who have been living according to their own timetable will spend an endless amount of time in agony and torment (Matt. 13:42; 25:46).
\nChapter Nine
\nWhen a Dusty Clock Strikes \u201c13\u201d, What Time is it?
\nThe Limitations of a Clock\u2019s Accuracy (See fig. #31.)
\nIn the previous chapter we illustrated how evidence can be reasonably interpreted several different ways so that one answer can be just as credible as another.
\nNow we will examine several assumptions or conditions which can truly alter the reliability of a clock\u2019s time.
\nA clock is only as good as the assumptions behind it. The dusty old clock of evolutionism is about as reliable for dating the Earth as a toy watch.
\nThe accumulation of dust on a coffee table can serve as a type of clock. Normally, how much dust has collected is an indication of how long it has been since it was dusted. But there are some important limitations that need to be considered which affect the accuracy of the clock. They are what scientists call \u201cassumptions\u201d\u2014or conditions that must be known for the clock to be considered 100% trustworthy. The dust on the table clock is considered accurate only if the assumptions are actually true.
\nFigure #31. TIME TO BUY A NEW CLOCK<\/p>\n
Three Assumptions
\nThere are three assumptions that must be accepted as accurate to make our dust clock reliable. The same applies to all scientific clocks. Otherwise fossils, bones, rocks and the age of the Earth cannot be accurately dated.
\nQuestion One: What were the starting conditions?
\nIn other words, how much dust was on the table immediately after dusting? None? Some? Quite a bit?
\nQuestion Two: What is the rate of change from the beginning until now?
\nIn other words, how fast does the dust build up on the coffee table and has the rate of accumulation been constant over time?
\nQuestion Three: Has the clock been free from outside influence over the time period in question?
\nIn other words, has anyone played a trick by sprinkling dust on the table or cleaned it off as a thoughtful gesture? Has there been some construction nearby that caused a considerable amount of dust to accumulate in a very short period of time? Remember the Mt. St. Helens eruption? If a resident of the area had gone on vacation just before the eruption and left a window partially open, upon returning he would have found an extra inch of dust covering everything.
\nA Clock Is Only as Good as Its Assumptions
\nThe importance of these assumptions is obvious. There are numerous ways that the accuracy of a clock can be altered. With the dust clock for example, remodeling next door could easily result in the production of an excessive amount of dust. The dust would spread out in all directions and create an additional layer of dust on everything nearby. The point is simple: A clock is only as good as the assumptions behind it. If the suppositions upon which it is based cannot be validated, the clock cannot be considered accurate. If the assumptions can be validated, the clock can be considered accurate.
\nCould one depend on a clock if the second hand sped up and slowed down at random? This is the same difficulty RMD encounters. Evolutionists are fully aware and admit that in order for RMD to be valid, certain assumptions must be granted, and, if these should be false premises, then the entire procedure would be worthless.
\nTime To Buy a New Clock
\nWhat time is it when your clock strikes \u201c13\u201d? Time to have it repaired or time to get a new clock. The RMD clock struck \u201c13\u201d a long time ago (as reported by evolutionary magazines), yet evolutionists refuse to repair their clocks because to do so would mean to reset them by the Grandfather Clock of all clocks\u2014God\u2019s Word.
\nFor in six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but he rested on the seventh day (Ex. 20:11).
\nChapter Ten
\nThe Case of the Disfigured Hourglass
\nRadioactive Hourglasses
\nRadioactive rocks are types of hourglasses. As each radioactive particle in the rock decays, it is like sand flowing through an hourglass because it changes (passes) into another element which can be measured. For example, the radioactive element rubidium changes (flows) into the non-radioactive element strontium. (See fig. #32.) Scientists have calculated how long it takes for radioactive rubidium to change into non-radioactive strontium. By measuring how much radioactive rubidium and non-radioactive strontium there is in a rock, they calculate its age. This seems simple; but the truth of the matter is, there is no way to check the obscurity of one\u2019s conclusions unless one knows how much radioactive rubidium and non-radioactive strontium were in the rock to begin with.
\nFigure #32. RADIOACTIVE HOURGLASSES<\/p>\n
The Problem of a Disfigured Hourglass
\nPicture this: an hourglass with a tube running from the outside into the top part of the left side. Through this tube additional sand is entering the hourglass. On the lower right side, a second tube exits and sand is continually flowing out. (See fig. #33.) How accurate do you think this hourglass would be for telling time? Obviously, it is not a very accurate timepiece. The above hourglass is what is called an open system, meaning it is open to outside influences which will influence its accuracy in telling time.
\nA chunk of rock can also be an open system, with various elements seeping in or out at any time. (See fig. #34.) When a scientist (especially an evolutionary one), takes a chunk of rock for dating purposes, he is hoping, of course, that the rock has remained closed to outside contaminating influences since its formation. But it is highly unlikely that any rock would remain undisturbed, with nothing added or subtracted since the time it was formed. In fact there is overwhelming evidence revealing that rocks can be contaminated by outside influences, as will be shown in the following chapters. It is highly unlikely that any given rock could serve as an accurate timepiece.
\nFigure #33. A DEFORMED HOURGLASS<\/p>\n
Figure #34. AN OPEN SYSTEM<\/p>\n
Serious Weakness of Radiometric Dating
\nThis then is a serious weakness of radiometric dating. How can geochronologists (people who date rocks) decide what the initial conditions were for each rock? They can\u2019t unless they know the ratio of the parent to daughter (radioactive to non-radioactive) element within the rock when it was formed.
\nThe problem is, in order to reach a conclusion, it is necessary to make several assumptions. One has to assume certain things that are impossible to know\u2014as was the case with the riddle of the three hourglasses.
\nChapter Eleven
\nThe Missing Legs of Evolutionism\u2019s Sacred Cow
\nNever Believe a Rock
\nA rock is never a homogenous blob (uniform, consistent, unvarying lump of matter). Rocks don\u2019t always tell the truth. They \u201cspeak\u201d out of both sides of their mouth. A rock will say on Monday that it is a million years old and on Thursday say that it is a billion years old. Each of several samples taken from the same rock will show a different ratio of parent to daughter (radioactive to non-radioactive) elements. As a result, each sample indicates a different age. This reality further reveals the inability of RMD to be accurate for dating rocks or fossils, not to mention the Earth or the universe.
\nFor example, if radioactive uranium were to seep into a rock (scientists call this contamination), the rock will contain a higher ratio of uranium to lead than expected. It would appear that only a small percentage of the uranium had decayed and that the rock is much younger than it really is.
\nIf, on the other hand, uranium has been leached out of the rock by water, heat or some other factor, then the ratio will be low and RMD will yield an age older than it really is. Changes in the amount of lead can be equally misleading.
\nThe Missing \u201cLegs\u201d
\nWhat if a rock has no radioactive uranium, but only lead? One possibility is that all the uranium has decayed and the rock is very old. But another possibility is that it never had any uranium to begin with, just as the riddle of the third hourglass had no sand in the upper half to begin with.
\nWhat if a rock contains equal amounts of uranium and lead? Perhaps half the uranium has decayed. Or maybe the rock contained both uranium and lead to begin with, just as the second hourglass had sand in both the top and bottom when the table was first brought out. The ratio of uranium to lead cannot tell us how long the uranium in rock has been decaying unless it is known how much of each element was in the rock at the beginning.
\nThe Missing \u201cLegs\u201d of Radiometric Dating
\nOur lack of knowledge regarding the original ratios in rocks and the fact that they are open systems (open to outside influences which can reset their \u201cclocks\u201d) are the two major arguments against RMD raised by creationists. Not knowing the original conditions (represented by the forward legs of the sacred cow) is like not knowing how much sand was in the top and the bottom of the hourglass. The tubes that allow additional sand to enter and exit the hourglass (represented by the rear legs) definitely affect the accuracy of the RMD clock. The sacred cow of evolutionism is about as accurate as an hourglass with four appendages which allows the sand to enter and exit at will. (See fig. #35.) It is very easy to see that the foundation for RMD is built on shifting sand.
\nThe accuracy of the hourglass depends on the ability to know the following:
\n1. How much sand was in the hourglass before it began flowing.
\n2. The rate at which the sand is flowing.
\n3. When the sand began flowing.
\nFor radiometric dating to be accurate, it would be essential to know:
\n1. The ratio (correct amount) of both Parent and Daughter (radioactive to non-radioactive) elements in the rock when it was formed.
\n2. When the decay (changing from radioactive to non-radioactive) process began.
\n3. The rate of decay (change) of the parent element into the daughter element.
\nFigure #35. RMD HOLY HOURGLASS HEIFER<\/p>\n
It Bears Repeating
\nEvolutionists are fully aware that in order for RMD to be accurate there are certain assumptions that must be granted. They know that if these assumptions should be false, the entire dating system would be worthless.
\nAssumptions, then, are the foundation for RMD and are crucial to its accuracy. If these assumptions are false, there is no foundation for RMD, which means the \u201cHoly Cow\u201d of evolutionism doesn\u2019t have a leg on which to stand.
\nWhy should it be assumed that the non-radioactive elements found in a rock such as lead result from decaying uranium? Could not lead have been placed in the rock at its formation? There is no valid reason for assuming that such could not have occurred\u2014unless one is attempting to create his own dating system (ruler).
\nThe Barbecue is About to Begin
\nThe legs of evolutionism\u2019s sacred cow RMD\u2014have been cut off and roasted. Now let\u2019s go for the prime rib. Let\u2019s take an in-depth look at this holy cow. We shall see that all RMD clocks have struck \u201c13.\u201d Let the barbecue begin. The fatted calf has been slain and the hors d\u2019oeuvres will include C-14 and uranium to lead. (See fig. #36.)
\nFigure #36. IN RMD WE TRUST<\/p>\n
PART III
\nCARBON 14 (C-14)\u2014THE DISMANTLING CONTINUES
\nChapter 12: \u201cCarbon Dating Has to Be Revised\u201d
\nChapter 13: What is Carbon 14 (C-14)?
\nChapter 14: Why C-14 is Not Reliable
\nChapter 15: An Illuminating Illustration
\nChapter 16: The Missing Foundation of C-14
\nChapter 17: A Clammy Conclusion
\nChapter 18: \u201cThe Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating\u201d
\nChapter 19: C-14 Confirmations of Recent Creation and Worldwide Catastrophe\u2014Noah\u2019s Flood
\nChapter Twelve
\n\u201cCarbon Dating Has to Be Revised\u201d
\nStrong Language for a Weak Evolutionary Clock
\nNational Geographic magazine (11\/77) has made this bold statement: \u201cCarbon dating has to be revised.\u201d \u201cThe reason is simple. The older an object is, the more C-14 underestimates its age. Some calculations have been more than 99% off. Use of the Carbon-14 dating method is restricted to those results that can be checked against the written records left by ancient civilizations; these go back only for 6,000 years. Beyond 6,000 years, the margin of error increases greatly.
\nFrom the bulletin of the Geological Society Of America Curt Teichert writes:
\nNo coherent picture of the history of the earth could be built on the basis of radioactive datings.
\nLibby, the Nobel Prize winner for C-14 dating, issued the following statement:
\nRecent elaborate studies have now demonstrated conclusively that the initial activity of C-14 samples and thus the rate of C-14 production has varied with time.
\nMore recently the work of Suess has clearly pointed out these variations.
\nC. A. Reed writes similarly regarding the C-14 method:
\nAlthough it was hailed as the answer to the prehistorian\u2019s prayer when it was first announced, there has been increasing disillusion with the method because of the chronological uncertainties, in some cases absurdities, that would follow a strict adherence to published C-14 dates.
\nBristlecone Pine Tree Rings
\nThe problems associated with C-14 dating can be illustrated by dating a tree. As you probably know, trees can be dated by simply counting visually the tree rings from a cross section of the tree. Then, taking a tiny piece of the ring, one can submit it to the C-14 dating process. Comparing the visual count date and the C-14 date, one is able to see the discrepancies. This very method was performed on the bristlecone pine trees in California, which are considered the oldest living trees on earth. When trees were tested, there were huge discrepancies between the actual tree ring dates and the C-14 dates from a few centuries to 1,000 years. For example, one tree\u2019s rings dated it back to A.D. 1420 and another to A.D. 1640. When both submitted to C-14 dating, both yielded the same date of A.D. 1470 (see fig. #37).
\nIs C-14 Useful at All?
\nOccasionally radiometric dating yields an accurate date. But in numerous cases C-14 gives very different results than are expected. There are many reasons why radiometric dating cannot be considered an accurate and dependable clock beyond a few thousand years. There are too many variables. Age can be very deceptive.
\nFigure #37. WHO STOLE MRS. BRISTLECONE\u2019S RINGS?<\/p>\n
Chapter Thirteen
\nWhat is Carbon 14 (C-14)?
\nHow to Date a Fossil
\nDating bones or fossils involves a scientist\u2019s analyzing the radioactive substance found within them. He knows that radioactive substance disappears at a known rate, much like the sand in an hourglass. The substance which disappears in fossil bones is the radioactive element Carbon 14 (C-14 for short). The C-14 dating system was developed between 1945 and 1959 by W. F. Libby of the Institute of Nuclear Studies and the University of Chicago. Since this technique was invented, tens of thousands of objects have been dated: wood, bone, charcoal, oil, etc. Contrary to popular opinion, this system is based on assumptions that are highly questionable.
\nAlthough Libby was awarded the Nobel Prize for his work in the development of C-14, he himself pointed out the limitations of using it when he wrote,
\nYou read books and find statements that such and such a society or archaeological site is 20,000 years old. We learned rather abruptly that these numbers, these ancient ages, are not known; in fact, it is at about the time of the first dynasty in Egypt that the last historical date of any real certainty has been established.
\nIt appears that even Libby\u2019s faith in the accuracy of C-14 was lacking.
\nWhere C-14 Comes from
\nC-14 is produced high in the atmosphere where nitrogen atoms are bombarded by cosmic rays from outer space, causing them to become radioactive C-14. As a result of wind currents, C-14 particles float down to the earth and are absorbed and ingested by all life\u2014plants, animals and man. Therefore all living things have radioactive C-14 within the cells and tissue of their bodies. (See fig. #38.)
\nThe Life of C-14
\nWhen a plant, animal or human dies, it ceases to take in C-14. Over a period of time, the C-14 begins to decay and disappear like the sand in the upper half of an hourglass. For C-14 to completely disappear from a fossil bone would require about 60,000 years. But even after 10\u201315,000 years, there would be so little C-14 that it would be very difficult to detect. So C-14 is not accurate for dating objects that are thought to be over 20\u201330,000 years, and totally useless for objects believed to be over 50\u201360,000 years. If C-14 has any value, it would only be for dating objects that can also be dated by other means. An ancient manuscript containing the names of kings and battles, giving clues as to when these people lived in history, might be successfully dated by C-14. If a trace of the mummified body of King Tut (See fig. #39) of Egypt was submitted for C-14 dating, the results might be trusted because we already know the dates of King Tut\u2019s reign. C-14 dates are only to be trusted if they can be confirmed by the actual contents and subject matter of an object being dated, such as an ancient manuscript made out of an animal skin or papyrus plants. (See fig. #40.)
\nFigure #38. C-14 FORMATION<\/p>\n
Measuring C-14
\nIt is C-14 that scientists attempt to measure in dead plants, animals, bones, etc., to determine how long it has been since they were alive. Supposedly, by measuring how much C-14 exists in a fossil and comparing it to the amount of C-14 in living things, one can determine how long it has been dead. (See fig. #41.)
\nFigure #39. KING TUT<\/p>\n
Figure #40. PAPYRUS PRINTING<\/p>\n
Geiger Counting C-14
\nMeasurement of C-14 is done with highly sophisticated equipment. A geiger counter, for instance, can actually count the radioactive particles in rocks and fossil bones. (See fig. #42.) If you have ever seen a geiger counter in action, you heard it clicking as it approached radioactive material such as uranium counting the radioactive particles. (See fig. #43.) If it makes a rapid and continuous clicking that sounds like static on a radio, then there is a considerable amount of uranium in the rock and the rock would be said to be very young. On the other hand, if the clicking is relatively slow, then most of the radioactive uranium has disappeared. It has changed into its non-radioactive by-product, and the rock would be considered very old.
\nFigure #41. THE LIFE OF C-14<\/p>\n
Figure #42. HOW TO DATE A BONE<\/p>\n
Since scientists know the present rate of decay for radioactive elements, then it would seem that simple arithmetic could accurately calculate the ages of rocks and fossil bones. However, as has been previously pointed out, there is more to the story. It just isn\u2019t as simple as it appears. There are too many variables and assumptions that can change the accuracy of C-14 and any radiometric clock. These variables and assumptions will be covered in the following chapter.
\nFigure #43. MEASURING RADIOACTIVE MATTER<\/p>\n
Chapter Fourteen
\nWhy C-14 is Not Reliable
\nBlind Faith
\nThere are serious problems with C-14. For it to be an accurate ruler to measure ages of bones and other specimens from things that were once living requires making several assumptions. Those who believe C-14 to be accurate must accept it by blind faith. There is simply no way to find out whether the assumptions are correct. In other words, C-14 is an elaborate technological structure erected on a foundation of assumptions which can neither be tested nor verified. These assumptions are weak links in the chain of C-14 dating. C-14 is like a magnificent edifice built on a very shaky foundation. Over the last several decades, continuous storms (investigations) have eroded the base of the edifice, exposing the faulty foundation. Now the tower is toppling, in spite of incessant attempts by those who worship it to supply reinforcements. They desperately want to keep it from losing its prominence among the scientific community.
\nBuried in a Sub
\nSuppose you had been commissioned by the U.S. Navy to spend a year in a submarine at the bottom of the ocean. During that time you would not be permitted to make contact with the outside world. Before entering the sub a sealed box was given to you; it was not to be opened until you were inside the sub. Upon opening the box, you discovered a clock. This would be the device that would tell you when a year had elapsed. To trust this clock to be accurate, you would have to make some assumptions:
\n1. It was set accurately before it was put into the box.
\n2. It would run consistently during the entire year.
\n3. Nothing or no one had tampered with it in any way before and during the year. That these things were true would have to be accepted by blind faith, as there would be no way to check this clock against any other clock.
\nThis scenario is only hypothetical, but it depicts the assumptions associated with C-14 and other radiometric dating methods. The only difference between this scenario and the bristle-cone pine rings is that the clock in the sub was just to run for a year; with the pines, the clock supposedly ran tens of thousands of years. One rarely hears of a clock that runs without any correction after one year, let alone for thousands or even billions of years.
\nThe problem with the tree ring \u201cclock\u201d mentioned in chapter 12 is that apparently it had been tampered with. That\u2019s why the dates obtained from using C-14 were considerably off.
\nToday we understand that there are a number of factors which can alter the growth of tree rings. There are circumstances that can cause more than one ring to grow in a year. For instance, droughts, temperature changes, excessive precipitation and global catastrophes can change the development of tree rings.
\nChapter Fifteen
\nAn Illuminating Illustration
\nA Point that Bears Repeating
\nThe fact that RMD\u2019s foundation is based only on assumptions cannot be overemphasized. It is important to one\u2019s understanding of the weakness of this sacred cow so highly esteemed by the evolutionary community. The following illustration shows that RMD is based on fantasy rather than fact.
\nA Burning Candle (See fig. #44.)
\nThe assumptions associated with dating techniques such as C-14 can be illustrated with a candle. Suppose you are attending college and one of your subjects is Science 101. Upon entering the classroom on the first day of the term you see a candle burning on the professor\u2019s desk. You note that it is five inches tall. The assignment on the blackboard is to figure out how long the candle has been burning. An \u201cA\u201d for the term will be awarded to each student who comes up with the correct answer. After an hour of observation and assessment, you determine that one inch of the candle has been consumed. Since the candle is burning at one inch per hour, you can only conclude that it will burn another four hours since there are still four inches remaining. But you still do not know how long it has been burning, nor how long the candle was originally.
\nFigure #44. HOW LONG HAS THE CANDLE BEEN BURNING?<\/p>\n
As you watch the candle burn, you realize that it gives off a byproduct, carbon dioxide (CO2). You know that you can calculate how long the candle has been burning by dividing the amount of CO2 produced in one hour into the overall amount of CO2 in the room. (See fig. #45).
\nBuilt-in Assumptions
\nHowever, anyone who listens to your reasoning immediately detects several flaws. You have several assumptions built into your experiment. You do not know whether or not carbon dioxide was present in the room before the candle was lit. Furthermore, since you and your classmates have been exhaling the identical gas, CO2, it is impossible to make an accurate determination of how much CO2 came from the candle. Also, there is no way to know whether any CO2 has escaped from the room. You assume that the candle has been burning and will continue to bum at a constant rate. However, there are a number of known variables which can change the rate of consumption: the thickness and makeup of the wax, the thickness of the wick, and the amount of oxygen the flame receives. Each of these variables could change the amount of CO2 produced in a given hour.
\nFigure #45. GATHERING CARBON<\/p>\n
Any conclusions that you might make will be based on various assumptions. All dating techniques, including C-14, are based on assumptions and variables just like our candle illustration.
\nGuessing Adam\u2019s Age
\nIf the production of the radioactive element C-14 increases or decreases, then the amount of C-14 absorbed by plants and animals will not be constant throughout the ages. Any fluctuation will keep one from being able to accurately calculate the age of a rock or fossil. It would be like trying to guess a person\u2019s age while blind-folded, with nothing to base your guess on except his height. Remember Adam? How tall was he at his first birthday?
\nIf in the past less C-14 was produced, animals would not have absorbed as much C-14 into their bones. Using present-day rates of production of C-14 to make calculations, a fossil that reads very old actually could be rather young. It is entirely possible that the amount of C-14 assumed to be in the fossil to begin with, is inaccurate.
\nThe lesson one learns from the professor\u2019s quiz is that to find the answer needed to receive an \u201cA\u201d will be about as easy as finding the foundation upon which the C-14 dating system is based.
\nChapter Sixteen
\nThe Missing Foundation of C-14
\nWeak Links in the C-14 Dating Process (See fig. #46.)
\nAssumption One: The Absorption Rate of C-14 Has Been the Same throughout Time
\nIt has been explained how all living things\u2014animals, plants, insects, humans, etc.\u2014absorb radioactive C-14 while alive. It is the remaining C-14 in a specimen that scientists measure to calculate how long it has been since it died. This method of determining the age of a fossil is based on several assumptions.
\nFirst of all, it is assumed that the rate at which living things absorb C-14 has always been the same. This cannot be verified. And if there has ever been even a slight change in the rate of absorption, then using a formula based on present absorption rates for calculations will yield incorrect conclusions. As a result, this \u201cclock\u201d is not an accurate one.
\nFigure #46. WEAK LINKS IN THE C-14 DATING PROCESS<\/p>\n
Assumption Two: The Production and Formation Rate of C-14 Has Been the Same throughout Time
\nEvolutionary scientists today assume that there have always been the same amount of C-14 particles in the atmosphere. And they assume it has been so since life, as they also postulate, suddenly appeared on Earth a billion years ago. This means that they believe that all living things\u2014including trees, plants, fish, fowl, insects, animals and humans\u2014absorbed the same amount of C-14 while they were alive.
\nThere is no way to prove and validate this. Any change in the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere would drastically affect RMD\u2019s accuracy. If there has not always been the same amount of C-14 in the atmosphere, then living things have not always absorbed the same amount of C-14.
\nC-14 Production Variables
\nSeveral factors are known to affect C-14 production. (Remember that C-14 production is caused by cosmic rays hitting nitrogen particles high up in the atmosphere.)
\n1. Cosmic Ray Intensity (See fig. #47.)
\nRadiation from the sun affects the amount of cosmic rays entering Earth\u2019s atmosphere. It is a known fact that cosmic rays do vary. These variations are thought to be related to sun-spot activity. If the amount of cosmic rays entering the Earth\u2019s atmosphere has not been constant, the production of C-14 has not been constant. If in the past there was less C-14 being produced due to a weaker cosmic radiation bombardment, then the present day RMD calculations would be giving older dates than are true. Until this point is settled, the accuracy of C-14 dates is questionable.
\nFigure #47. COSMIC RAY INTENSITY<\/p>\n
2. The Earth\u2019s Magnetic Field (See fig. #48.)
\nThe magnetic field of the Earth deflects cosmic rays away from the Earth. The greater the strength of the magnetic field, the greater the deflection of cosmic rays. The greater the deflection of cosmic rays, the less C-14 is produced. The less C-14 produced, the less will fall to the Earth to be absorbed by living organisms. This means RMD, which is based on the assumption that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same, yields dates older than true ages. Evolutionism assumes the present is the key to the past. (That is, what happened in the past is taking place the exact same way today.) They base their calculations on this very shaky assumption.
\nFigure #48. EARTH\u2019S MAGNETIC FIELD SHIELD<\/p>\n
3. The Pre-Flood Water-Vapor Canopy (See fig. #49.)
\nIf a water-vapor canopy surrounded the Earth at some point in the past as creationists believe, it would have had a shielding effect against cosmic rays. This would have resulted in a lower rate of C-14 production. Thus the C-14 testing method would show greater than actual age for fossils dated. (Both the magnetic field and the water vapor canopy are discussed in detail in Volume IV of the Creation Science Series entitled The Canopied Earth: World That Was.)
\nFigure #49. PRE-FLOOD VAPOR CANOPY SHIELD<\/p>\n
Assumption Three: The Ratio between C-12 and C-14 in the Atmosphere Has Been the Same throughout Time
\nThe climate before the Flood is believed to have been warm and tropical. This warm climate may not only have been caused by a water-vapor canopy, but also by a content of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that is higher than it is today. The large amounts of carbon found locked up in coal and oil deposits formed from plant and animal remains confirm this. If it is true that the early atmosphere contained several times more carbon dioxide than the present atmosphere does, then the atmosphere of the past would have a smaller proportion of radioactive C-14 in relation to non-radioactive C-12, both of which are absorbed by plants and animals. This difference in the ratio would be considerably different than the present day ratios which form the basis of the C-14 method for calculating ages of fossils. Fossilized plants and animals dated by the C-14 method would give an older age than they should.
\nAssumption Four: The Decay Rate of C-14 Has Been the Same throughout Time
\nThe fourth assumption that evolutionists make when using C-14 as a method to determine the age of a fossil is that the decay rate of C-14 has remained the same throughout time. The decay rate is the length of time it takes for C-14 to change into C-12. The present rate of decay indicates that every 5,730 years, half of the C-14 disappears from a specimen. The question is, has C-14 always decayed at the rate we presently observe?
\nWithout a witness, it is impossible to know whether or not C-14\u2019s rate of decay has remained constant. There is evidence that the decay rate has varied in the past. It may have been much faster in times past. One factor that could have a marked effect on the decay rate is a stronger magnetic field. Scripture reveals that before the Genesis Flood, man\u2019s life span was much longer than it is today. However after the Flood, the ages of the patriarchs in the Bible exhibited a steady decline. Noah lived 950 years; Salah lived 433 years; Abraham lived 175 years; Moses died an old man at 120 years. Eventually, mankind reached a 70-year life span (Psa. 90:10). (See fig. #50.)
\nThe declining longevity after the Flood took over 30 generations and more than 1500 years to stop at the new norm of \u201cthree score and ten\u201d years. (The reasons for longevity are covered in Volume IV of the Creation Science Series entitled The Canopied Earth: World That Was.) There is reason to believe that C-14\u2019s decay rate has varied in the past. Creationists believe that originally the rate was very rapid, and later exhibited a slow and steady decline until it plateaued at today\u2019s rate. (More will be said about this in chapter twenty-seven.)
\nIf the decay rate of C-14 was much more rapid in the past, the C-14 clock will give much older ages for fossils than is true. It would be like trying to tell the time by a watch that does not run at a steady rate. There is no way that one can get the correct time from such a watch.
\nFigure #50. THE DECLINE OF LONGEVITY<\/p>\n
Review of Evolutionary Assumptions regarding C-14
\n1. The C-14 absorption rate has remained the same throughout history.
\n2. The production of C-14 has remained the same throughout history.
\n3. Cosmic-ray intensity has remained the same throughout history.
\n4. There has been no effect from a stronger magnetic field in the past.
\n5. There was never a greater amount of C-12 in the atmosphere.
\n6. There was never a vapor canopy surrounding the Earth.
\n7. The C-14\u2013C-12 ratio has always been the same in living organisms.
\n8. The C-14 decay rate has been constant throughout history.
\nIt is easy to see that the C-14 method of dating has no firm foundation. As a result, such dating yields numerous inaccuracies. C-14 is an unreliable dating method.
\nIt appears that those who have courted C-14 in the past have a few things to learn about dating. Attempting to romance a 14-year old girl who appears far older can get an adult into a heap of trouble. Likewise, evolutionists who have been enamored with C-14\u2019s capability to produce ancient ages for fossils are finally realizing that these supposedly ancient bones are, more often than not, those of a minor! (See fig. #51.)
\nFigure #51. THE COLLAPSE OF C-14 DATING<\/p>\n
Chapter Seventeen
\nA Clammy Conclusion
\nClams that Fibbed about Their Age
\nAssumptions associated with the use of C-14 are readily seen in the following example. The shells of living freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated and have yielded dates in excess of 1,600 years old, which clearly reveals that this dating technique is not valid. The reason for this mistaken age is now understood with the case of these freshwater clams.
\nFreshwater clams derive the carbon atoms they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. Water does not have as much C-14 as the atmosphere does, so of course the clams do not contain as much C-14 as other living things. Clams also produce their shells from dissolved limestone in the water. Limestone contains very little, if any, C-14, which means that clam shells contain less C-14 than they would have if they had obtained their C-14 atoms from the air. When a clam shell is tested by the C-14 method, it contains so little C-14 compared to other objects that the clam seems to be very old.
\nThis problem, known as the \u201creservoir effect,\u201d does not greatly impact those involved with radiocarbon dating. Most of the artifacts and objects which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes are of interest to archaeology and are obtained from land organisms which receive their C-14 atoms from the air, not the water. But this miscalculation of age by RMD is noteworthy because it indicates that there are numerous variables and unknown factors which can alter the results of RMD\u2019s.
\nBack to the Hourglass
\nThink back to the hourglass illustration. Even though we could calculate the rate at which the sand was flowing, we did not know when the sand began to flow nor how much sand was originally in the hourglass. This is the identical problem one has when attempting to determine the age of a bone by using the C-14 radiometric dating method. One cannot be sure how much C-14 radioactive material nor how much of the non-radioactive C-14 by-product was originally in a fossil.
\nIf a scientist attempts to determine the age of a fossil that did not originally contain the amount of C-14 found in plants and animals today, then his calculation will be in error. His predicament would be similar to the one encountered with the dating of the freshwater clams.
\nPre-Flood Canopy Affects C-14 Dating
\nThe assumption that all living things contain the same amount of C-14 at death, whether they died today or 5,000 years ago, cannot be confirmed. It could well be that life before the flood started with very little C-14, as previously pointed out
\nA scientist may assume a great age of 30,000 to 40,000 years, because he takes it for granted that the bone he is examining contained at its death the same amounts of C-14 found in bones of living creatures today. In actuality, it very well may have contained much less. He is unaware that his supposition is false, and has made no effort to correct it.
\nAll ancient dates established by the C-14 dating method are in serious question. There was once a different atmospheric economy which we cannot understand without the scriptures. If in fact there was once a canopy of vapor (see fig. #52) around the earth, which the Bible confirms, then the atmosphere at that time would have been drastically different than it is today. This would have major effects on the reliability of C-14 radiometric dating. The clams, which live under a water-vapor canopy of sorts\u2014the ocean\u2014are a testimony to this.
\nFigure #52. PRE-FLOOD COSMIC RAY BLOTTER<\/p>\n
Chapter Eighteen
\n\u201cThe Proof of the Pudding is in the Eating\u201d
\nWhen C-14 Strikes \u201c13\u201d
\n\u201cC-14 Pudding\u201d Tastes a Bit Burnt
\nThere is an old saying that goes, \u201cThe proof of the pudding is in the eating.\u201d We can talk a lot about the evolutionary community\u2019s assumptions regarding C-14, but the proof that C-14 cannot be trusted is in the \u201ceating\u201d\u2014by looking at the evidence. C-14 often not only misses the mark, but the entire target. Many of the examples listed have been drawn from the Creation Research Society quarterly journals (6\/74 & 12\/83), which provide over 400 instances of radiometric dates out of whack.
\nPenguins
\nPenguins living in the Antarctic today, when tested by C-14, have tested at 3,000 years in age. Have these penguins outlived Methuselah by more than three times?
\nSeals
\nFreshly killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years, and mummified seals dead no longer than 30 years have been dated up to 4,600 years.
\nShells of living mollusks (snails, etc.) have been dated by C-14 at ages of up to 2,300 years.
\nMammoth and Peaty Soil
\nBone, which is porous, has been found to absorb organic material. With no way to determine original material from that which has been absorbed, C-14 dates become completely meaningless. For example, the hair on the Chekurovka mammoth yielded a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years, but the peaty soil in which it was preserved yielded a date of only 5,600 years.
\nEven a child can see the \u201cmammoth\u201d mistake made here.
\nMusk Ox
\nMuscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, yielded a radiocarbon age of 24,000 while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass produced an age of 7,200.
\nSays Wayne Jackson,
\nThat would suggest that the ox wandered around bald for some 16,800 years\u2014then finally grew hair. For some of you there is yet hope!
\nWood
\nWood from actively growing trees was dated at 10,000 years. What makes this so unusual is that the oldest known trees on earth are the bristlecone pines of Nevada which by their rings have been dated at 4,900 years old.
\nSiberian Tree Rings
\nAn example of how meteors have affected C-14 readings occurred in Siberia on June 30, 1908. It is documented in the Readers Digest, August 1977, \u201cRiddle of the Great Siberian Explosion.\u201d According to reports, the Carbon 14 measurements of tree rings around the world were greatly altered as a result of the blast.
\nHow can one measure any sample and calculate the age correctly if there were major environmental changes in the past? The C-14 system depends on the idea that there have not been catastrophic events in the past. In other words, if in past conditions on the Earth were very different, C-14 dating is worthless.
\nWood on Mt. Ararat
\nOne particular piece of wood found on Mt. Ararat, and believed possibly to be from Noah\u2019s Ark, was dated by five independent laboratories. Each gave a different C-14 date.
\nCoal and Oil
\nCoal and oil are formed primarily from organic tissue that was once living. Evolutionists allege that the great coal beds of the Earth were formed as a consequence of the gradual (millions of years) accumulation of vegetable matter in bogs and marshes. They claim that it takes about 1,000 years to produce one inch of coal. They also claim that oil takes enormous ages to form.
\nHowever, the evidence does not support the evolutionary view. If coal and oil were really as old as evolutionists suppose they are, there should be no C-14 in them at all. Any radioactive C-14 should have decayed and disappeared long ago. At the present rate of decay, after 60,000 years, there would be no C-14 in coal or oil. And since they were supposedly formed millions of years ago, there should be no sign of C-14 whatsoever. However, when coal and oil samples have been tested, the results have revealed that there is C-14 yet remaining within the sample. This reveals that the evolutionary dates ascribed have been hypothetical. Evolutionists tend to ignore these results.
\nCreation Viewpoint
\nThe geological data indicates that at some point in Earth\u2019s history, huge amounts of vegetation were collected by great water currents dumped in various locations. Finally they were covered with sediment such as dirt, sand, clay, etc. This produced pressure and heat\u2014a condition which caused the vegetable matter to be converted into the great coal seams and oil deposits which are today found throughout the world. This process occurred so quickly that there was no time for decay to take place, nor for termites and other insects to consume the wood. Coal geologist E.S. Moore declares,
\nFrom all available evidence it would appear that coal may form in a very short time, geologically speaking, if conditions are favorable.
\nThe United States Bureau of Mines at Pittsburgh has illustrated that long periods of time are not necessary for producing oil. They have produced oil experimentally in only one hour. Refuse was subjected to 250\u00b0 centigrade, and was put under only 1,500 pounds of pressure. It was processed in about an hour, and allowed to cool. It was found that one hundred pounds of refuse can produce about two gallons of oil.
\nThe question at this point is, just how reliable is C-14? Well, as previously stated, the answer can be found in the National Geographic magazine of November 1977: \u201cCarbon Dating Has to be Revised.\u201d
\nChapter Nineteen
\nC-14 Confirmations of a Recent Creation and Worldwide Catastrophe\u2014Noah\u2019s Flood
\nIn spite of the problems associated with the use of C-14 as a reliable clock, there is one positive aspect. It has confirmed that creation was a rather recent event and that there was a worldwide catastrophe which took place since creation. The recent creation is a biblical view and the catastrophe harmonizes perfectly with Noah\u2019s Flood of Genesis 6.
\nNo Bones Left Untouched
\nSince the discovery of Carbon 14, over 25,000 specimens of once-living matter\u2014humans, animals, plants and trees\u2014have been dated in universities and laboratories all around the world. Practically nothing has been left untouched.
\nThe first amazing thing that comes to light when surveying all these dates is that everything scientists have dated have proven datable. Objects that were supposed to be millions of years old have yielded a date younger than 60,000 years, which is the limit of C-14 dating. Some examples are:
\na. Neanderthal man
\n32,000 years
\nb. Saber-toothed tiger
\n28,000 years
\nc. Coal
\n1,680 years
\nd. Fossilized tree
\n11,700 years
\ne. Rhodesia man
\n9,000 years
\nf. Petrified wood
\n10,000 years
\ng. Mastodon bones
\n8,900 years
\nThe second thing that becomes evident as one scrutinizes C-14 dates is this: If there was a global flood in the past, the deaths that would have taken place at that time should far outnumber the deaths taking place at other times in history. The biblical Flood would have supplied ideal conditions for fossilization, so the majority of fossils dated should coincide with a worldwide catastrophe. This is exactly what is found in the fossil record.
\nIf one sorts C-14\u2019s 25,000 dates into groups by time, one will discover that the majority of specimens died suddenly at a specific point in time. This points directly to a catastrophic event like Noah\u2019s Flood. In other words, C-14 dating verifies that a giant catastrophe once struck the Earth at a particular point in history, wiping out man, beast and tree. According to the Bible, that is exactly what we should expect the evidence to say. The C-14 dating method is much more reasonable if it is compressed to fit within the biblical time frame of 6,000 years rather than 4.6 billion years.
\nGraphing 25,000 Fossils
\nR. Whitelaw, of Virginia Polytechnic Institute, graphed the 25,000 radiocarbon dates that had been published through 1970 to fit within a 7,000-year period rather than the evolutionary time frame. The resulting graph below peaked with the greatest number of deaths occurring about 4,000 years ago, which is close to the time of the Flood. The following graph portrays Whitelaw\u2019s 25,000 C-14 corrected datings. (See fig. #53.)
\nSection A represents a low percentage of fossils of plants and creatures which were part of the original creation and died some time before Noah\u2019s Flood. They would have had little C-14 to begin with because C-14 would not have had time to build up in the atmosphere. The original plants and animals would not have taken in nearly as much C-14 as later plants and animals.
\nFigure #53. WORLDWIDE FLOOD CONFIRMED<\/p>\n
Section B represents plants and animals which lived sometime during the 1,600 years from Creation to the time of the Flood. They would have lived very long lives, giving them additional time to injest C-14 than animals and plants living after the Flood, when lifespans became much more brief. Since the Flood devastated the Earth, killing all animals outside the Ark and destroying the lush foliage worldwide, there should be a great number of fossils that date at one certain point in time. This is exactly the case. The peak in the graph over the letter \u201cB\u201d represents the huge destruction of life at the time of the Flood. This is how C-14 confirms the worldwide disaster of Noah\u2019s Flood.
\nThe section over the letter \u201cC\u201d of the graph represents life after the Flood. Not many specimens have been found for this period of history because the Earth never again teamed with plant and animal life as it did before the Flood.
\nMore Amazing Facts
\nA survey of the 15,000 radiocarbon dates published through the year of 1969 in the publication Radiocarbon revealed the following significant facts.
\n1. Of 9,671 specimens of trees, animals and man, only 1,146, or 12%, yielded radiocarbon ages greater than 12,530 years. One would think that the percentage would be well over 50% if evolutionism\u2019s timetable was true.
\n2. Only 3 of the 15,000 specimens yielded ages as infinite (no radiocarbon within the specimens). One would expect thousands of the specimens to have no C-14 at all since many would supposedly be older than 75,000 years if evolutionism\u2019s timetable were true.
\n3. The samples of coal, oil and natural gas had radiocarbon within, meaning they are less than 50,000 years old. These substances are supposedly millions of years old if evolutionism is true.
\n4. Deep ocean deposits thought to contain the remains of the most primitive life forms yielded dates of 40,000 years or less. This is truly amazing since evolutionists have assigned such creatures ages of over \u00bd billion years.
\nIf the Earth and life on it are really as ancient as the theory of evolutionism claims, then a great proportion of the C-14 dates should be infinite. Yet the large majority of C-14 ages are either within the range of the biblical time frame or not far beyond it.
\nAdditional RMD Methods
\nThe C-14 RMD dating method can only be applied to materials containing carbon. Thus it cannot be used in estimating the age of rocks such as sedimentary layers, thereby indicating the age of the earth. At present decay rates of C-14, it takes approximately 60,000 years for all carbon to disappear out of a fossil. So any fossil claimed by evolutionists to be \u201colder than 60,000 years\u201d cannot be dated by the C-14 method. If a fossil is found in a layer of rock suspected of being millions of years in age according to evolutionism, then C-14 will not be used to date the fossil. Rock surrounding fossils is dated by other radiometric dating methods, which have just as many assumptions and problems as C-14. The date determined for the rock will be the date assigned to the fossil found inside the rock. In the next section, we will look at other radioactive dating methods and examine their limitations.
\nIn Conclusion
\nThere is no scientific evidence that proves that the Earth is billions of years old. The RMD dating processes have been built upon the evolutionary notion that the Earth must be old because evolutionism requires it to be old. \u201cBilly the Sacred Bull\u201d is on his way to being well barbecued. The way it looks, he will be well charred before we reach the end of our \u201cbeef\u201d with the evolutionary timetable.
\nPART IV
\nMAKING A DATE WITH URANIUM\u2014THE DISMANTLING CONTINUES
\nChapter 20: New Olympic Record: Two-Minute Mile
\nChapter 21: Uranium to Lead: What is It? How Does It Work?
\nChapter 22: Sifting Through Problems, Assumptions and Critical Factors Regarding Uranium\/Lead Dating
\nChapter 23: How to Change the Time of an Atomic Clock
\nChapter 24: When the Uranium\/Lead Clock Strikes \u201c13\u201d
\nChapter 25: Examples of Evolutionary Clocks Which Struck \u201c13\u201d
\nChapter 26: The Testimony of Helium (A Rollicking Case of Laughing Gas)
\nChapter 27: The Sacred Cow is Gasping for its Final Breath\u2014The Dismantling is Complete
\nChapter Twenty
\nNew Olympic Record: Two-Minute Mile
\n4.6 Billion Years Old, Says Who?
\nThe next time someone claims the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, ask him, \u201cHow do you know the Earth is 4.6 billion years old?\u201d He will probably answer, \u201cBecause there are dating methods such as uranium to lead which proves it\u201d Then ask, \u201cAre you positive that uranium to lead is 100% accurate, or are there numerous assumptions built into its foundation?\u201d If the person is honest and understands how radioactive dating methods work, he will have to admit that all RMD methods are not absolute and that they do not and cannot verify any date for the age of the Earth. We will examine some of these dating assumptions in this section. It must be remembered that the RMD clock systems (dating methods) were designed and chosen with evolutionism in mind.
\nMaking My Own Clock (See fig. #54.)
\nAlthough in the Olympics the metric system is used for measuring distances, Americans are accustomed to using miles instead of kilometers. We will use the following illustration.
\nFor many years the great athletes of track and field events could not run the mile in less than four minutes. Eventually it happened. Today additional seconds have been trimmed so that the record is 3 minutes and 46 seconds. It may be a long time before the mile is run in 3 minutes. However, if you were to allow me to design and construct my own stop watch, I could run the mile in less than two minutes. In fact, I could set new Olympic records in every running event. If you were to allow me to make my own ruler, I could also break every jumping record in one day.
\nThis is exactly what evolutionists have done. The alleged \u201cgreat age of the Earth\u201d was already fixed and determined by evolutionists long before the dating methods were ever invented. Once RMD was developed, evolutionists simply designed the clock to fit in with their ideas.
\nFigure #54. TABLOID TIDINGS TRIBUTE<\/p>\n
Antiquated Measuring Systems
\nIn spite of the fact that most of the world is now using the metric system, Americans still use their own system for measuring (inches, feet, yards, miles, etc.).
\nEvolutionists also have their own system for measuring time. It is based on assumptions and designed to their advantage. It accommodates their belief system and helps them maintain an artificial \u201ccomfort zone\u201d in spite of the evidences which confirm that their system of measuring is incorrect. Can you imagine the officials at the Olympics using a chronometer that yields assorted and diverse times? However, when the issue isn\u2019t really time but the Ruler of time, it is amazing how educated men will adhere to their antiquated persuasions.
\nThere simply is no scientific evidence (RMD or otherwise) that confirms an Earth that is even one million years old, let alone 4.6 billion years old.
\nChapter Twenty-One
\nUranium to Lead: What is it? How Does It Work?
\nTurning to Uranium
\nBecause C-14 decays relatively quickly, changing into its non-radioactive daughter element, it cannot be depended upon to measure ages over a few thousand years with any degree of accuracy. Therefore, evolutionists turn to other RMD methods which they believe can measure greater time spans. They use radioactive elements such as uranium\/lead, rubidium\/strontium and potassium\/argon which today decay (disappear\/change) very slowly. Using the decay rate of these elements, evolutionists believe they are able to measure ages of fossils back millions and even billions of years. Since all of these dating methods are similar, we shall take a close look at only one of these techniques, the uranium\/lead RMD method and consider its limitations, its weaknesses and the assumptions upon which it is based.
\nHow Uranium-to-Lead Dating Works
\nUranium-to-lead dating is based upon the slow transformation of the radioactive element uranium which decays (disappears) and changes into the non-radioactive element lead.
\nFor example, let us assume that we have found a chunk of pure uranium. (See fig. #55.) Actually, a lump of pure uranium has never been found, but to illustrate our clock let us assume that we have found a large nugget.
\nUranium is radioactive. As it slowly decays it changes into non-radioactive lead. Its half-life is believed to be 4\u00bd billion years. (See fig. #56.) In other words, at the present decay rate it takes 4\u00bd billion years for a rock of pure uranium to change half into lead. This change is called the radioactive decay process. In another 4\u00bd billion years, half of the remaining portion of uranium will change to lead, leaving us with a rock that is only \u00bc uranium and \u00be lead, and so on. Eventually the rock will change completely into lead, just as the sand disappeared from the upper half of the hourglass to change to the lower half.
\nTo determine how old a rock is, geochronologists measure how fast the radioactive element in that kind of rock decays. Then he submits the rock in question to testing which determines how much lead and how much uranium are present in it. This technique supposedly determines the age of the rock\u2014that is how much time has elapsed since it was formed.
\nFigure #55. PROSPECTING THE TIMES<\/p>\n
Figure #56. URANIUM\u2019S HALF-LIFE<\/p>\n
The Fatal Weakness of Uranium\/Lead Dating
\nSuch a theory for dating rocks seems quite reasonable at first. But once you realize, like all radiometric dating techniques, it is based on several assumptions and that there is no way to verify whether or not the proposition has validity, you recognize the instability of its foundation. If even one assumption is partially incorrect, then the age the dating technique yields can be off by billions of years. We shall now consider several assumptions regarding the RMD method of uranium to lead.
\nChapter Twenty-Two
\nSifting through the Problems, Assumptions and Critical Factors regarding Uranium\/Lead Dating
\nThe Lifeblood of Evolutionism: Time
\nIt must be remembered that time is crucial to the evolutionary plot. Time is that on which evolutionism lives, feeds, drinks and breathes. Without it, evolutionism is hopelessly lost and powerless. Once again it must be stressed that there is absolutely no scientific evidence indicating that the Earth is billions of years old. All dating techniques used by evolutionists to yield an ancient age for the Earth are grounded on assumptions which take for granted that evolutionism is true. Typically, the uranium\/lead clock is based on assumptions. If they should prove false, the entire method is worthless. (See fig. #57.)
\nFigure #57. BREAKING DATES<\/p>\n
1. Major Assumption One: The Clock Began at 0:00
\nImagine you are running the 25-kilometer marathon at the Olympics. When the gun sounds to start the race, you look up at the official clock and notice that it is not at 0:00 but reads 2:00. You immediately know something is wrong somewhere. You of course let the judges know about the problem. But what if no one had noticed. The runners would seem to be very slow because it would appear that it took them an extra two hours to complete the race.
\nThe same problem exists with dating rocks using RMD methods. But it cannot be as easily remedied.
\nRMD assumes that the clock began at 0:00. The by-product, in this case lead, represents the non-radioactive element called the daughter. The daughter (lead) originates from the radioactive element called the parent (uranium). But how do we know whether or not the rock started with lead in it? Why should it be assumed that all of the lead within a rock is the result of the decaying process? Could not lead have been formed within the rock at the time of its initial creation? There is absolutely no valid reason for assuming that such could not have occurred unless one is attempting to \u201crig\u201d a dating system for his own benefit.
\nThere is no way of knowing whether or not a rock had some of the by-product (daughter) element in it to begin with. Evolutionists must believe rocks did not have any of the daughter element or their dating process becomes worthless. Actually the reverse has been shown to be the case. By-products such as lead have been shown to exist in rocks where uranium never existed. Even evolutionary scientists concede this possibility. Evolutionist David Seidemann points out regarding another the potassium\/argon RMD method (potassium decays into argon):
\nPotassium-argon dates of these rocks may be subject to inaccuracies as the result of seawater alteration. Inaccuracies may also result from the presence of excess radiogenic Argon-40 trapped in rapidly cooled rocks at the time of their formation (Emphasis mine.)
\nIn other words, the by-product, argon, into which potassium decays, can already be in a rock as it forms. It didn\u2019t come from the radioactive potassium within the rock.
\nTo accurately date a rock, it cannot have contained any of the by-product when it was first formed. If originally there was any of the nonradioactive element in the rock, then it started out \u201cold.\u201d
\nDaughter or by-product elements were probably present from the beginning of creation. This is evidenced in volcanic rocks that are dated over a billion years even though they are known to have been formed in modern times. Once again we see another assumption and a weak link in the chain of radiometric dating. (See fig. #58.)
\nFigure #58. THE MATTER OF ASSUMPTIONS<\/p>\n
2. Major Assumption Two: The Clock Has Not Been Tampered With
\nLet\u2019s return to the Olympics for another illustration. Suppose during a 5-hour marathon, the official clock is tampered with, not by man, but by mother nature through an electrical storm. The electrical power fails, and even the backup systems malfunction. As a result, a repairman comes in to reset the clock. The official time has been lost and now he can only guess as to where to reset the clock. His guess probably will be fairly close to the correct time.
\nHowever, when it comes to guessing the Earth\u2019s age, we have a major dilemma that cannot be so easily remedied. RMD methods assume that rocks have remained \u201cclosed\u201d since they were formed\u2014nothing has been added and nothing has been taken away throughout time. If it was discovered that the official Olympic chronometer had been tampered with during even one event it would be a scandal that would hit every major newspaper in the world. While there are ways to check and double check the accuracy of each timepiece used at the Olympics, there is no way to check the accuracy of the RMD clocks beyond the written history of man. No one knows for sure whether or not the rocks have been tampered with by Mother Nature.
\nEvolutionists assume that there has been no addition nor removal of either the parent element or the daughter (by-product) element in rocks. However, it is known for a fact that these elements can be easily leached out of (removed from) a rock by something as simple as rainwater percolating through the rock. Experiments also reveal that heat can cause particles of various elements to be extracted from rocks.
\nEven in such an impervious (sealed) and hard substance as granite this leaching can occur in significant quantities. Someone studying an iron meteorite discovered that it lost 80% of its potassium by having distilled water run over it for 4\u00bd hours. Such experiments reveal how minerals can go in and out of rocks while they lay beneath the Earth\u2019s surface.
\nIn other words, the evidence reveals that these clocks can and have been tampered with. Just as a child moving the hands of a clock can destroy the clock\u2019s accuracy, nature can interfere with rocks and ruin their ability to give proper time. For the dating process to be considered reliable and able to give an accurate age, there can have been no loss or gain of the radioactive element or of the by-product element.
\nThere is evidence to show that the decay element (such as argon that decays from potassium) will diffuse, disperse or spread from areas of high pressure to those of lower pressure. Argon will go from the lower rocks to ones that are higher, giving the highest rocks an appearance of great age. Dr Henry Morris points out:
\nThese radioactive methods are always applied only in igneous rocks, and these have all been affected by numerous tectonic, metamorphic, and hydrologic forces. It is almost inconceivable that any mineral could remain a closed system for a billion years of fracturing, folding, solvent action, and other such phenomena. Geochronologists recognize this to be a serious and common problem.
\nUnless a rock is known to have been closed through all the ages since its formation, RMD\u2019s age readings are meaningless. The bottom line here is that assumption number two is another weak link in the evolutionary chain. Radiometric dating is not a reliable way to date the Earth. (See fig. #59.)
\nFigure #59. MORE MATTER OF ASSUMPTIONS<\/p>\n
3. Major Assumption Three: The Clock Runs at a Constant Speed
\nOnce again let\u2019s consider a problem that could arise while timing a marathon at the Olympics. A marathon can last for several hours, depending on the distance involved. To accurately time the runners, the clock must run at a constant speed. If we are going to use the rate of decay as a clock, it too must have been constant throughout all of Earth\u2019s history. It is assumed that the uranium clock has never sped up, slowed down or come to a complete stop. It is assumed that nothing can change the rate of the speed of decay.
\nSuppose you are in a prison cell for 50 years. There are no windows and there is no light coming in whatsoever. You have a watch that is self-winding and seems to be very reliable. You have never noticed anything unusual about its workings. Question: Could you tell the correct time 50 years later? Only if you were sure of the accuracy of the watch. But it is impossible to be sure unless you have another source with which to compare it.
\nStudents studying science are taught that radiometric dating is accurate. But the assumptions upon which it is based are rarely mentioned in the lectures. It is obvious that to do so would undermine the credibility of the sacred cow. Furthermore, we have shown that there are a number of ways the decay rate can be changed. We shall look at several known ways in the following chapter.
\nThe Uranium\/Lead Clock
\nWould you consider purchasing an expensive chronometer that on hot days tends to run a little fast and on cold days it runs a little slowly to time an important race, even though it is advertised as being worn by the greatest sports heroes in the world? Of course not. Yet we accept the results of the uranium\/lead clock which prominent evolutionary scientists use, though the same problem has been shown to occur.
\nIt is obvious that there are numerous problems regarding the use of uranium\/lead dating process. There are just too many assumptions that are too weak to sustain the accuracy of the immense ages that the uranium\/lead yields for the age of the Earth. (See fig. #60.)
\nFigure #60. THE DEMISE OF ASSUMPTIONS<\/p>\n
Chapter Twenty-Three
\nHow to Change the Time of an Atomic Clock
\nIt has been shown that there are a number of ways in which the rate of decay of radioactive materials can change. These atomic clocks are susceptible to outside influences just as every other type of clock is.
\nChange under Pressure
\nA scuba diver\u2019s watch may be guaranteed to keep accurate time for up to 1,000 feet below sea level. However, if it sank to the ocean floor at 10,000 feet, what do you think would happen? The incredible pressure would literally crush its delicate internal mechanism.
\nPressure is one way the radioactive decay rate can be altered. Consider the pressure on a fossil under several miles of rock. Is it possible that kind of pressure at that depth could change the decay rate? Science magazine not only affirms this idea, but provides examples that this is the case.
\nChange by Radiation
\nWe know that radiation can affect the human body. It can destroy cells, organs and biological clocks within the genes of a person\u2019s body. This destruction causes all kinds of malfunctions within the various systems that maintain a person\u2019s health. There are processes which can influence the radioactive decay rate. For example, an influx of cosmic radiation and the resulting production of neutrinos\u2014tiny invisible elementary particles of creation\u2014can take place through events such as a reversal of the Earth\u2019s magnetic field or a supernova explosion in nearby stars. This simply means that the whole dating process can become faulty and invalid. It is commonly accepted by many scientists that such phenomena have occurred in the past. So there is a very real possibility that at various intervals in the past, radioactive decay rates were much faster than they are presently. Hence neither the age of prehistoric artifacts nor the age of the Earth and universe can be confirmed by any RMD method.
\nChange by Global Disaster
\nAdditional confirmation that the decay rate can be altered is documented in an issue of Industrial Research and Development. Dr. Jueneman declares,
\nThe age of our globe is thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such \u2018confirmation\u2019 may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences.
\nAnd this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [age of the dinosaurs and of the evolutionary geologic time scale] to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.
\nIt is incredible that such an admission would come from an evolutionist because it devastates the evolutionary belief that the radioactive \u201cclock\u201d has been constantly ticking along without missing a beat for the last 4.6 billion years. It admits that if there was some global disaster in the past, then all of the radiometric clocks are virtually worthless. Consider then the effects of a worldwide flood such as the one mentioned in Genesis chapter 6. Dr. Jueneman\u2019s confession will no doubt preclude his being voted scientist of the year by his evolutionist colleagues.
\nDr. Jueneman is not the only evolutionist making confessions with far-reaching implications. Another advocate of evolutionism, Dr. William Beck states,
\nWhen all is said and done, there seems to be evidence that even the \u2018laws of nature\u2019 are changing. Modern physics suggests the possibility that changes are taking place in the speed of light and the rates of chemical reactions. In other words, the universe is changing, and it becomes hazardous to attempt calculations concerning the very remote past and the future.
\nStill another scientist of the Canadian Geological Survey, Dr. Kenneth L. Currie, comments:
\nA century of experience and experiment has shown that the selection and calibration of a geological clock is a task full of difficulty and hidden pitfalls. Natural processes in general do not act at fixed rates. The assumption that an average rate taken over a long period of time can be extrapolated is generally unsatisfactory.
\nThe ancient Earth fallacy can be summarized by a statement of a British scientist who endorses the billions-of-years theory:
\nPerhaps the most questionable parts of geology are the dates, which are bound to be lacking in absolute proof.
\nThe above confessions by evolutionists substantiate the Creationist viewpoint that the alleged \u201cbillions of years\u201d for the age of the Earth is based on myth, not fact. The convincing manner in which evolutionists have made bold proclamations that the Earth is ancient is nothing more than a tactic designed to reinforce their stance. It is propaganda spread to bolster their personal interest in rejecting the clear testimony of God and His Word regarding the history of planet Earth and the soon return of the King and Judge of the universe.
\nChapter Twenty-Four
\nWhen the Uranium\/Lead Clock Strikes \u201c13\u201d
\nThe Ultimate Test
\nOnce again the old proverb rises to the occasion: \u201cThe proof of the pudding is in the eating.\u201d The proof of the reliability of radiometric dating is in its testing. The uranium\/lead \u201cpudding\u201d is a bit too heavy to digest. If RMD is so accurate in dating a rock sample, why are specimens rarely dated by more than one method? Is it because it is expensive? It is expensive, but this isn\u2019t the reason for declining. The answer is that the evolutionist knows that the dating lab will likely yield a date that is not accurate. So he chooses to go to the mythical evolutionary chart on the wall of his lab.
\nEvolutionists know that whenever a rock is dated by more than one method, the results will differ. In other words, for the same specimen each dating method yields a different date\u2014often millions of years apart. Rarely does a rock yield the same age when dated by more than one method. The majority of rocks tested by more than one method yields ages that are millions of years apart.
\nMoon Rocks
\nAs previously pointed out, when the Apollo 11 mission brought rocks and soil samples back from the moon, the uranium\/lead tests on them produced four different dates: 4.6, 4.8, 5.4 and 8.2 billion years. How do we know which figure is correct? Are any of them correct? Besides this, certain Apollo 12 rocks tested by strontium\/rubidium and uranium\/lead RMD methods ranged in age from 2.3 to 4.9 billion years. (See fig. #61.)
\nFigure #61. LOONEY LUNAR DATES<\/p>\n
This wide range of dates is incredible. The vastness of the error might be compared with government projections for the cost of a new government space program. Of course, when one has the moon to shoot for, figures are meaningless, especially when \u201cUncle Sam\u201d is footing the bill. Since most of these were not the dates for which the evolutionists were looking, the rocks were chemically adjusted until they produced the desired age of 4.6 billion years, the age that evolutionists had previously determined for the moon. In scientific lingo, this adjustment is called calibration with \u201cgeologic accordance\u201d or \u201csetting the clock to the time we want,\u201d or \u201csetting the time so that it will correspond to our geological column (chart).\u201d
\nIt must be remembered that evolutionists are not asking the question How old is the moon?, but How is the moon old? In other words, they have already determined it is 4.6 billion years old. Therefore, they are not trying to determine how old it is, but rather how can it be proven to be 4.6 billion years old.
\nAdditional Loony Lunar Dates
\nBesides the assortment of dates previously mentioned, there are additional dates which suggest that RMD leaves much to be desired when it comes to accuracy. According to Science magazine, potassium\/argon tests on lunar rock revealed an age of 2.3 billion years. The same potassium\/argon testing method was used on volcanic lava rocks from Hawaii, yielding 160 million to 3 billion years. In fact, the lava rocks were formed from an 1801 eruption, which means that the dating process was 99.999% in error. Such an error can be compared to a lady who weighs 100 pounds stepping on a set of scales which reads 1.5 billion pounds. Something is wrong somewhere, and I would suggest that it centers in the designer of the evolutionary clock.
\nOn top of all that, one particular rock from Apollo 16 gave uranium\/lead ages from 7 to 18 billion years, so it was chemically treated until it yielded a \u201ccorrected\u201d and \u201cacceptable\u201d age of 3.8 billion years.
\nTesting of rocks with known ages, like the lava rocks of Hawaii, has proved that the RMD method yields erroneous dates. Question: How far off were the dates given to the moon rocks?
\nLunar Soil
\nAlong these same lines, the lunar soil showed not only an abundance of radioactive material, but also types of radiation that simply should not be in existence if the moon were very old. For those who are radiometric dating buffs, the following is the technical jargon regarding the decay:
\nShort-lived U-236 and TH-230 isotopes found in lunar materials are taken as testimony for youth. If the moon were of great age, the short-lived isotopes would have long since decayed and thus be presently absent. Yet they are not absent, they are in relative abundance.
\nIn simple English this translates that the age of the moon should be spoken of in terms of thousands of years, not millions or billions.
\nChapter Twenty-Five
\nExamples of Evolutionary Clocks Which Struck \u201c13\u201d
\nRocks
\n1. Basalt Rock
\nBasalt rock has been assigned by conventional evolutionary geology to be \u201cupper tertiary,\u201d which is believed to be 2\u201326 million years old. However, when samples of this lava formation found in Nigeria were subjected to different RMD methods, the results yielded differing dates:
\nMethod A
\nBy a process known as fission tracks: less than 30 million years old.
\nMethod B
\nBy potassium\/argon: 95 million years old.
\nMethod C
\nBy uranium\/lead: 750 million years old.
\nWhich date is right? Or better yet, are any of them right? This old evolutionary clock struck \u201c13,\u201d and we aren\u2019t speaking of military time.
\n2. Lava
\nThere are many examples of RMD yielding enormously incorrect ages of rocks. Another example involves a 200-year-old lava flow of Hawaii. It yielded radiometric dates of up to 22 million years old. The age of this lava flow was known from historical sources, so the inaccuracy of RMD was uncovered. Here we have another evolutionary clock which has struck \u201c13.\u201d
\nAdditional miscalculations:
\nLava Flow
\nKnown Age
\nK-Ar Date
\nA. Hualalei, Hawaii
\n81 years
\n400,000 to 3.3 billion
\nB. Salt Lake Crater, Oahu
\n81 years
\n1.1 million to 2.96 billion
\nC. Mount Etna, Sicily
\n171 years
\n150,000 years
\nD. Sunset Crater, Arizona
\n904 years
\n220,000 years
\n3. Basalt Rock Formation
\nAnother article shares a study that was conducted on a basalt rock formation. Seven different ages were obtained using various RMD methods. The dates varied from 0 to 3.3 billion years. I know we aren\u2019t supposed to be superstitious about the number 13, but it seems as if the evolutionary clocks have had a spell of bad luck. They just keep striking 13.
\n4. Rocks from the Azores
\nResearch was done on ten samples of volcanic rock from the Azores (islands off the coast of West Africa). Reports a British engineer:
\nThere are serious discrepancies in their \u201cage-dating\u201d by conventional methods. Research on the ten samples from Azores \u2026 of rocks known to be very young, give \u201cages\u201d all the way from 100 million to 10.5 billion years.
\n5. Rock Samples from the \u201cTertiary Age\u201d
\nOften one RMD method will yield different ages for rocks which, according to the evolutionary geological chart, are supposed to be of the same age. One of the worst cases of the evolutionary clock striking 13 concerns 22 rock samples. All were supposedly from the \u201cTertiary Age\u201d (65 million years old or less) and all were dated using the same radiometric dating method. The 22 different dates produced ranged from 70 million years to 3.3 billion years. Here we have a rollicking case of radioactive indigestion in which the hi-tech equipment couldn\u2019t swallow what evolutionists were attempting to feed it.
\nIt appears that the use of RMD continues to strike out the batters of evolutionism. At times RMD pitches a no-hitter. However, this doesn\u2019t seem to bother the evolutionary team. They know that there will be another opportunity to raise their batting average. It can\u2019t get much worse. There will always be another season in which each scientist can bat again because there are plenty of rocks and bones that can be tested, and a new crowd of fans who haven\u2019t heard about last season\u2019s bottom-of-the-cellar standings. These college freshmen will be sitting in the next class of Evolutionary Science 101 in the fall at the local state university. There is always the hope of someday hitting a home run. However, one day these scoffers will look to the rocks for a different reason, to hide them from the Rock of Ages.
\nThey called to the mountains and the rocks, \u201cFall on us and hide us from the face of him who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb!\u201d (Rev. 6:16).
\nAt the time of your appearing you will make them like a fiery furnace. In his wrath the LORD will swallow them up, and his fire will consume them (Psa. 21:9).
\nMeanwhile, evolutionists either ignore RMD\u2019s many discrepancies or consider the specimens contaminated\u2014unsuitable for further analysis or investigation. I guess if one doesn\u2019t like a no-hitter thrown against his team, he can just act as though it never happened and move on.
\nSkull 1470
\nIn July of 1969, Richard Leakey (one of the foremost evolutionary anthropologists in the world) sent samples of volcanic ash to London for dating his newest discovery, \u201cSkull 1470.\u201d
\nUsing the potassium-argon method of dating, a date of 220 million years came forth. This was immediately regarded as an impossibly high figure for the emergence of man\u2019s ancestors. It simply did not agree with the evolutionary time chart.
\nSo another sample of the soil surrounding Skull 1470 was sent so that it could be submitted for RMD analysis. This time an age of 2.6 million years appeared. Since this was acceptable, it is the age now used for this fossil. In other words, evolutionists just keep trying until their method yields an age somewhere in the ballpark of the age their chart shows. Any date yielded that is outside of the ballpark must be considered contaminated, and thus of no value.
\nThe Great Temptation
\nThe public, particularly the media, has a great appetite for the sensational. So there is a big temptation for a scientist to arrive at a date which changes his work from being merely interesting to being sensational. But the chief temptation is for the scientist to selectively choose an age for a rock which seems to confirm the theories on which his professional reputation rests. Such sensational dates lead to enormous tax-deductible monetary grants from foundations, along with generous royalties from books and films. These provide a very affluent and comfortable lifestyle for the evolutionist who somehow stumbles onto a \u201clucky find.\u201d
\nWhen the Heat is On, How Reliable is K-Ar?
\nIn 1973, tree roots were fossilized in a matter of moments when a high voltage line fell near Grande Prairie, Alberta, Canada. For several hours before the power was shut off, enormous amounts of electricity flowed into the ground. As a result, the sandy soil literally became a molten mass of fused silicon. The roots from nearby trees were fossilized into solid stone from the molten silicon, which permeated the cell structure of the roots.
\nScientists at the University of Regina, Saskatchewan, were asked what the results would be if these root specimens were dated by K-Ar (potassium-argon) in order to determine their age. Since they were fossilized, they appeared to be very old. They stated that the test \u201cwould be meaningless.\u201d
\nWhy would a K-Ar test be meaningless? Because it would indicate an age of millions of years because heat was involved in the petrification process. Did you catch that? When heat is involved, the radiometric dating process becomes meaningless. As a general rule, only volcanic and igneous rocks (those rocks which were once in a molten or liquid form) can be dated by RMD methods. Such methods come with built-in assumptions, which we have pointed out previously. Consider the above statement made by the university science department in light of the fact that volcanic ash is used to date the fossils found within it. Also consider the following examples.
\nFamous \u201cApemen\u201d
\nThe following famous evolutionary discoveries were all \u201cdated\u201d by radiometrically testing the volcanic (ash) material overlying the actual artifacts.
\n\u2022 Skull \u201c1470\u201d dated at 2.8 million years old (National Geographic 12\/73).
\n\u2022 \u201cLucy\u201d dated at 3 million (National Geograpic 12\/76).
\n\u2022 Footprints dated at 3.6 million (National Geographic 4\/79). Other famous finds have produced helpful data. (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. II, 1969).
\n\u2022 Australopithicus\u2014Ethiopia\u2014publicized as 1\u20132 million years old by K-Ar dating for the overlying rocks. However, mammal bones in the same deposit produced a C-14 date of 15,000 years.
\n\u2022 Zinjanthropus: Another discrepancy between dating methods is seen in connection with Zinjanthropus\u2014the skull which the famous anthropologists, the Leakeys, found in Africa.
\nThe rocks found by the bones were dated by potassium-argon as 1,750,000 years old. Then someone dated mammal bones from the same bed from which Zinjanthropus was discovered using C-14; they yielded a date of only 10,000 years. Which method was right, or were they both wrong?
\nConclusion
\nIn view of the uncertainties and complexities involved in RMD dating methods, all interpretations of RMD dates are speculative and have limitations. This virtually removes RMD as an evolutionary tool, except for the time since the Flood in which calibration against historically dated materials is possible.
\nRadioactive dating techniques cannot justifiably be called scientific unless \u201cscientific\u201d is expanded to cover unreasonable assumptions and margins of error running to well over 90%. The evolutionary clock has truly struck 13. It will soon become a fossil itself. For everything that attempts to raise its head above the God of the heavens will be humbled.
\nThe arrogance of man will be brought low and the pride of men humbled; the LORD alone will be exalted in that day (Isa. 2:17).
\nFor everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted (Lk. 14:11).
\nThe best medicine an evolutionist could take at this point is to swallow his pride, humble himself before God, discard his evolutionary library and use the Bible as his basis for dating creation. (See fig. #62.)
\nFigure #62. TIME TO CHANGE CLOCKS<\/p>\n
Chapter Twenty-Six
\nThe Testimony of Helium (A Rollicking Case of Laughing Gas)
\nHow Helium Popped Evolutionism\u2019s Balloon (See fig. #63.)
\nHave you ever tried speaking after taking a deep breath of helium? Sound waves travel faster in a gas that is lighter than air. As a result, the pitch of one\u2019s voice rises so that it sounds like one of the animated singing chipmunks on TV. Another funny and unusual sound is produced by helium when evolutionists attempt to use the uranium\/lead dating technique to speak in behalf of their view of an ancient Earth.
\nThe evolutionist who considers the uranium-to-lead RMD process for dating the age of the Earth must also consider the uranium-to-helium process. Not only does uranium decay into lead, but as it does, it also produces another by-product\u2014helium.
\nFigure #63. BURSTING EVOLUTIONARY BUBBLES<\/p>\n
Two Clocks in One
\nThere are really two simultaneous clocks involved here. It could be compared to a split stopwatch used for timing more than one runner in a race. The first clock involves the decay of uranium to lead, which we have already covered. The second clock involves the accumulation of helium, which is also produced from the decay process as uranium changes to lead. In other words, as uranium is decaying and turning into lead, it produces the gas helium as a second by-product. (See fig. #64.) These two clocks from the same process should agree.
\nThis two-clock illustration can be better understood by taking another look at the candle illustration previously mentioned.
\nNot only did the candle produce carbon dioxide (CO2) but the flame melted the wax, which caused some of the wax to trickle and accumulate down the sides of the candle. If we measure the rate of accumulation each hour and divide it into the total accumulated amount of wax, we can conclude with a reasonable guess as to how long the candle may have been burning, or in the case of uranium to lead, how old the Earth might be. If helium has been a by-product of the uranium decaying into lead from the beginning, then we have another clock by which we can check out the age of the Earth.
\nFigure #64. THE HELIUM CLOCK<\/p>\n
Helium Dates Earth
\nHelium is a gas that forms as uranium turns to lead, then escapes from the rocks into the atmosphere (See fig. #65) or is locked up in natural gas deposits. Though not all of the helium from radioactive decay has reached the atmosphere, we can still get a reasonably good idea as to the age of the Earth as a result of this natural clock.
\nFigure #65. COLLECTING HELIUM IN THE HEAVENS<\/p>\n
As far as we know, helium is not escaping from Earth\u2019s atmosphere. Thus it has been accumulating over the ages and remains in the upper levels of our atmosphere.
\nLet us assume that originally there was no helium in the atmosphere and that it had been added at a constant rate from uranium-to-lead decay. Then the age of the atmosphere can be obtained by dividing the amount of helium in the present atmosphere (approximately 3.\u00d7 grams by the rate of helium formation per year, which is \u00d711 grams).
\nOn the basis of the above calculation, the age of the atmosphere would be a minimum of 12,000 years to a maximum of 350,000 years. This latter figure would include the helium believed still to be locked within the Earth\u2019s surface. This is a vast difference from the 4.6 billion years proposed by evolutionists.
\nThis calculated age would be even less when one considers that not all of the helium is coming from the radioactive decay, but some is coming from outer space. Helium enters our atmosphere from cosmic ray sources. Taking this into consideration, the Earth must be younger than 12,000 years.
\nA World Filled with Chipmunks
\nSo where is all the helium? If the Earth were 4.6 billion years old, our atmosphere should contain one million times more helium. Our atmosphere should be totally saturated with helium. If this were true, the entire human race would sound like chipmunks. (See fig. #66.) No, the testimony of helium has truly exploded evolutionism\u2019s balloon. The simple truth of the matter is that God\u2019s Word reveals that the age of the Earth is less than 10,000 years.
\nFigure #66. THE BIG HELIUM-FILLED EARTH<\/p>\n
Chapter Twenty-Seven
\nThe Sacred Cow is Gasping for its Last Breath\u2014The Dismantling is Complete
\nAn Amazing Discovery
\nThe primary reason evolutionists give for vast geologic ages is RMD. Creationists have continued to challenge the assumptions at the foundation of RMD.
\nHowever, through the research of Creation scientist Barry Setterfield, a recent and startling discovery was made. Setterfield found that the speed of light has been slowing down throughout history. This presents a new and devastating problem for all radioactive dating methods.
\nSpeed of Light is Decaying
\nA key factor in all RMD methods is that their associated rates of decay are based on the belief in a consistent speed of light throughout the history of the universe.
\nPhysicists know that the rate of decay for radioactive elements is directly related to the speed of light. The faster the speed of light, the more rapid the decay of radioactive elements. This means that all dating calculations published in the past must be refigured with the corrected and ever-decreasing value for light speed. When this is done, all radioactive dates fall within a time frame of a few thousand years.
\nBefore the Fall
\nWhat was the speed of light before the fall of man? It was at that time that all creation came under a curse. In scientific terms, the curse is known as the second law of thermodynamics. What will be the speed of light after Christ returns and sets up His eternal Kingdom? We are told that then the curse will be lifted and creation will be restored to its original perfection. These thoughts shed light on the subject of radiometric dating. If before sin there was no decay, radioactive or otherwise, then attempting to date rocks formed at creation or fossils of plants and creatures alive at that time would be futile. An entirely different formula would have to be used when using the radiometric dating system.
\nTaking a Bite out of the Speed of Light
\nSince radiometric dating processes are closely related to the speed of light, the dates yielded from the RMD processes are obtained in accordance with rate of decay.
\nSpeed of Light
\n+
\nRMD
\n+
\nRate of Decay
\nAge of Rock\/Fossil
\nThe rate of decay is based on the speed of light. The process of radiometric dating is based on the assumption that the speed of light has always been the same. Therefore evolutionists maintain that the rate of radioactive decay has always been the same. When scientists infer that a considerable amount of radioactive decay has occurred in a rock, they assume that the decay rate has always been the same and that billions of years were required for the rock to reach its present condition of radioactive decay.
\nHowever, if light traveled much faster in the past, particularly before the fall of Genesis 3, then the radioactive-decay process may have been occurring more rapidly at that time. Thus the amount of decay scientists thought would take 4.6 billion years in reality took only a few thousand years. Using this factor in the calculation dramatically reduces age estimates of rocks. As a result of Setterfield\u2019s disclosure, all radioactive-decay dates can be brought into the recent-creation time frame.
\nThe Missing Bridegroom
\nSuppose you have a battery-powered watch. You are about to be married and there is one hour left before you are scheduled to leave from your apartment. With a few minutes on your hands, you decide to double-check your reservations for the honeymoon suite. Unable to find the voucher, you search frantically for 45 minutes. The phone begins ringing, but you are too busy to answer. Nearly an hour passes, and you finally discover the missing hotel confirmation receipt. The doorbell rings. It is a couple from the wedding party, who seem hysterical as they ask why you haven\u2019t left for the chapel. You ask them what the rush is, since your watch says you still have 15 minutes before you had planned to depart. Suddenly your fiance appears, a bit upset. She informs you that everyone has been trying to call you and that you are over an hour late. After checking another clock in the apartment you realize the problem\u2014your watch is wrong. Eventually you arrive and the ceremony takes place.
\nAfter the wedding your bride doesn\u2019t seem to be fully convinced that the problem was not \u201ccold feet\u201d but that your watch had indicated the wrong time. After inspecting the watch you find that the problem was the battery. It was almost dead, causing the time mechanism to run slower. It was really much later than you realized.
\nHave you ever noticed that grandparents move somewhat slower than children? The reason is that their \u201cbatteries\u201d have run down as a result of the curse. Everything is subject to the second law of thermodynamics, so everything is slowing down\u2014including the speed of light.
\nCan you see the tremendous potential for making miscalculations when using RMD for dating fossils and rocks? If the mechanism which powers RMD is now running much slower than in times past, then the dates it yields will be much greater than they actually are. Thus the startling discovery that the speed of light has been slowing down throughout time, changes the entire picture regarding the use of radiometric clocks. They do not indicate vast ages as formerly thought, since, as physicists well know, the speed at which a radioactive-decay clock runs is directly related to the speed at which light travels.
\nBarry Setterfield\u2019s work with the speed of light is understandably controversial. Even many creationists have been very cautious about accepting this revolutionary concept and take an it\u2019s-too-good-to-be true posture. For his part, Setterfield has continued his research and sought every opportunity to debate and discuss his findings with fellow scientists. To date, no one has been able to debunk the findings, and support of Setterfield\u2019s work seems to be accumulating. (The decay of the speed of light is covered in depth in volume VIII of the Creation Science Series entitled The Birth of Planet Earth and the Age of the Universe).
\nThe work of Barry Setterfield compels one to consider a young creation in the framework of the Bible. However, to do so would not only cause one to consider the Author of the Bible, but also other more uncomfortable issues like sin, judgment and eternal damnation, as well as the need for a Savior of the world. Such topics are not popular in the evolutionary community as Scripture points out that men \u201cdid not like to retain God in their knowledge\u201d (Rom. 1:28 NKJV). So more than likely the scientific community will not be quick to accept the validity of the data furnished by Setterfield\u2019s research, even proves to be accurate.
\nIt seems only reasonable that the curse in Genesis 3 (better known in science as the law of decay or the second law of thermodynamics) has resulted in the entire universe being subject to decay, including the speed of light.
\nRadiometric Decay Adjustment
\nIf the speed of light has been decreasing, the rate of radioactive decay has also been slowing down. Therefore, adjustments must be made when using RMD methods.
\nInstead of Earth\u2019s history fitting into a 4.6-billion-year timespan, it could now fit comfortably and correctly (according to the Bible) within a 6,000 to 10,000-year framework.
\nThe old sacred cow of evolutionism needs to be set out to pasture. Although there isn\u2019t much breath left in her, and she is about to give up the ghost, no doubt she will be hooked up to an artificial life-support system in order to keep her around for the sake of the Darwinian diehard disciples. (See fig. #67.)
\nTHE DISMANTLING IS COMPLETE!
\nFigure #67. RMD IN ICU<\/p>\n
PART V
\nTHE CONCLUSION
\nChapter 28: The Great Brain Robbery
\nChapter Twenty-Eight
\nThe Great Brain Robbery
\nThe Great Train Robbery
\nMost every one has heard of The Guinness Book of Records. It is a fascinating compilation of great records\u2014some good, some not so good, but all great. One not-so-good entry is the great train robbery of 1963 in England\u2014the greatest one in the history of man.
\nAn entry which has yet to find its way into the book is the Great Brain Robbery. Evolutionism has plundered the minds of literally millions, and is perhaps the greatest robbery in the history of modern man. For more than 150 years this delusion of evolutionism has darkened minds and literally dazzled the imagination of civilized man. It has become like the holy cows of India that are untouchable. These cows are so venerated that their worshippers collect their dung and urine for religious purposes.
\nEverything that comes out of the cow is sacred, including dung and urine. A dose of the mixture consisting of milk, curds, ghee (clarified butter), cow dung and urine is considered extremely purifying to the soul and to the body, and the Hindus who act up to it are many.\u2026 In the streets of Hindu cities, pious men and women of the lower classes may be seen following cows, catching the urine of the cow in the cupped palm of their hand and sipping it. No pious Hindu will pass a cow without \u2026 an act of homage.
\nUnfortunately, evolutionists have stooped even lower in their degradation, and are more ignorant than those who worship sacred cows. They not only worship the cow, but all of creation rather than the Creator, for they know not their Creator.
\nThe ox knoweth his owner, and the ass his master\u2019s crib: but Israel doth not know, my people doth not consider (Isa. 1:3 KJV).
\nThe Holy Cows of Hinduism
\nThe nation of India staggers under an ever-increasing burden to feed its nearly one billion people. The problem is not lack of food, but having the wrong religion. For centuries the country has been under a demonic delusion. The Hindu religion teaches that people who die are reincarnated in the form of animals; thus it is against their laws and religion to kill rats, cows, cockroaches or any creature. After all, no one wants to eat a relative. In nations such as India, starvation has frequently resulted from man\u2019s religious institutions, and many diseases and other problems have been perpetuated because of the reverence of animals.
\nIt has been estimated that India has 200 million \u201csacred cows\u201d roaming throughout the cities and countryside, freely eating grain and destroying crops as they meander. All creatures large and small are believed to be kin, and if one is not nice to them, he or she may just end up as one in the next life. How utterly senseless and blind. It has been calculated that the food eaten and the damage caused by each cow is enough to provide for seven people. That translates into food enough to feed one billion and four hundred million people annually. That is more than one fourth of the entire world\u2019s population\u2014and that doesn\u2019t include the number of T-bone steaks, prime rib, and hamburger the heifers could provide.
\nThose who are under the delusion of religions like evolutionism, which are pantheistic in nature, are in a sad state. People living in monsoon climates like Bangladesh are flooded out during the rainy season, and then have drought conditions during other times, destroying their crops. Attempts have been made to persuade the people to construct dams for flood control and to store water for later use. However, they would not cooperate for fear of making the river god angry. In Genesis we read,
\nGod blessed them and said to them, \u201cBe fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground\u201d (Gen. 1:28).
\nThe reason that most Americans do not go to bed hungry, cold or without proper medical care is because our forefathers took the biblical perspective of controlling and utilizing nature to the benefit of man. It is apparent that a large portion of politicians and people of the U.S. have left the faith of their forefathers. As a result, the devastating consequences of godlessness which have occured in pagan countries such as India are now taking place in America.
\nThe Holy Cow of Evolutionism
\nLikewise, the holy cows of evolutionism and its companion RMD are untouchable. Evolutionism carries overtones of the Hindu religion. It regards all creatures large and small as our relatives. We humans are simply the \u201cJohnnies-come-lately\u201d on the family tree.
\nEvolutionism is on the same dead-end road to destruction as Hinduism. With the advent of the New Age movement, nature has become sacred. Evolutionary environmentalists have convinced the governments of the world to spend billions of dollars to save crickets, toads, lizards, butterflies, hogs, hawks, and others, while at the same time funding abortuaries to continue the mass murder of millions of children each year.
\nThe 1993 wild fires of California that were so devastating to the loss of properties and homes could have been far less costly had it not been for a \u201cSave the Rat\u201d campaign promoted by humanistic evolutionary environmentalists. Several years ago a law was passed in California that home owners could no longer till their fields around their homes in order to make a fire break. Tilling, it was stated, destroys the tunnels of the rats who live under the soil which in turn could upset their living conditions.
\nWith a fine of $100,000 and a year in prison, people were directed to mow rather than till long strips of areas in order to hopefully stop wild fires from spreading. However, when the fires came, those who mowed, lost everything because the fires were not stopped. The homes of those who defied the law and tilled their land were saved. Now they stand to be charged with breaking the law. The rat has become more valuable than man, which is the result of a \u201crat\u201d infested mind.
\nThe old adage, \u201cEast is East and West is West and never the twain shall meet\u201d is no longer valid. What has happened to the nation of India is now happening in Western nations. The value of human life is being reduced to zero, becoming of less value than the animals. Atheistic evolutionism is suicidal. The evolutionary road leads to a hellish road of death and despair.
\nIn the book of Romans, chapter one, we find the sad result of evolutionism outlined. Stooping lower than the pagans of the Eastern religions, evolutionism denies the Creator and pushes away the truth of His existence. Even though the truth of God is instinctively known, after a while man begins to think up silly ideas of what God is like. The result is that their foolish minds become confused and deceived. Then they claim to be wise, but instead become fools. They begin worshipping the creation rather than the Creator. They deliberately choose to believe lies because they have substituted the truth about Him with a fantasy from their own imagination. They have stifled the truth God naturally reveals to all people, in order to believe anything that supports their own self-centered life-styles. The judgment they receive will be just (Rom. 1:18\u201332).
\nDoes God Deceive through RMD?
\nSomeone may ask why God would have created a system of dating that seems to say that the Earth is ancient. God never creates anything that will deceive a person. A person is deceived after he has refused to accept truth. Eve was deceived when she rejected God\u2019s Word and listened to Satan say, \u201cDid God say? Oh! Don\u2019t you know that God didn\u2019t tell you everything?\u201d Eve rejected the source of all truth, which left her open to be deceived. Likewise when people reject God\u2019s Word, then they have opened themselves up to be deceived. This is why such a monstrous error could beguile so many millions of intelligent people for so many decades. And actually, if correct information were to be used in RMD\u2019s formula, then the dates yielded would be correct. But evolutionists put into the formula assumptions from their darkened minds, resulting in wrong conclusions.
\nEvolutionists have been deceived by the RMD methods because they refuse to believe in a supernatural creator, God, Who is the source of all truth. The only alternative is to measure truth by oneself.
\nThe fool says in his heart, \u201cThere is no God.\u201d They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good (Psa. 14:1).
\nThe fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline (Prov. 1:7).
\nDeception comes to a person after he rejects the truth. How could intelligent scientists believe in such a fantasy? The door opens when people reject what they know about God. Instead of looking for the Creator, they see themselves as the center of the universe. Soon they begin to invent stories that are convenient for propagating their own selfish plans and purposes. These stories become idols. These gods may not be made out of wood or stone, but they become goals, ambitions, aspirations and philosophies of life which assist the deceived in their pursuit of money, power and comfort. They end up worshiping, glorifying and idolizing the things God made rather than God Himself.
\nPaul clearly reveals in the book of Romans the inevitable downward spiral into sin. First, people reject God. Next, they make up their own ideas of what a god should be and do. Then they fall into sin. Finally they grow to hate God, and encourage others to do so, too. God does not cause this steady progression toward evil, but when people reject Him, He allows them to live as they choose. He allows them to deceive themselves, and permits them to experience the inevitable consequences of sin. Once a person is caught in this downward spiral into the darkness of a \u201cblack hole,\u201d he is unable to free himself, except through Christ Jesus, the Savior of mankind.
\nSome people choose to reject God, and He allows them to do it. God does not stop us from making personal choices that are against His will. He lets us shake our fists in His face and declare our independence, even though He knows that it will be to our detriment, and that we will become slaves to our own rebellious choices.
\nBiblical Perspective
\nThe biblical perspective regarding the Earth\u2019s age is that it is quite young. Much of the real evidence, not that which is tainted by assumptions of men who are in rebellion to God, points to a young Earth. If the universe can be shown to be young, evolutionism will be ruled out completely, since all agree that the evolutionary process requires vast numbers of years. Time is viewed as the great friend of evolutionism, supposedly performing all the miracles of creation that in the Bible are attributed to God.
\nThe Frog Prince
\nThe Disney movies have delighted millions of children. One animated fairy tale has a frog turning instantaneously into a handsome prince when kissed by a beautiful princess. (See fig. #68). The evolutionist seems to think that if he can add a few hundred million years into his \u201cfairy tale,\u201d it will become scientific fact. By supplying enormous periods of time to their fantastic theories, the reasoning of man becomes deadened and he believes the unbelievable. (See fig. #69.)
\nFigure #68. TALE OF THE TOAD: PART I<\/p>\n
The famous evolutionist and Harvard professor George Wald has explained the evolutionists\u2019 view of the importance of time as follows:
\nThe important point is that since the origin of life belongs in the category of at-least-once phenomena, time is on its side. However improbable we regard this event.\u2026 Given enough time it will almost certainly happen at least once.\u2026 Time is in fact the hero of the plot.\u2026 Given so much time, the \u201cimpossible\u201d becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs miracles.
\nEvolutionism is a 20th-century fairy tale that becomes an illusion for these who have rejected God and His Word.
\nThe Last Word
\nThe goal of this writer is to expose lies. The evolutionary community, because of its unwillingness to recognize God as Creator and Ruler of the universe, has become a pawn in the devil\u2019s hand. Satan has hoodwinked ungodly souls with his beguiling and seductive invitation to become as gods. The destiny of those who choose to accept his invitation is eternal tragedy.
\nFigure #69. TALE OF THE TOAD: PART II<\/p>\n
The public has been deliberately brainwashed to believe in vast ages. Where can one find even one credible dating method arguing for a young creation in \u201cscientific\u201d literature? Evolutionists are not looking for truth, but only accept conclusions that endorse their philosophy of life, and sanction and support their lifestyle\u2014a lifestyle that allows them to live according to their own dictates. THEREFORE TO THEM IT IS UNTHINKABLE TO ACCEPT ANY EVIDENCE THAT POINTS TO GOD.
\nGod Answers
\nBut God continually raises up believing scholars and scientists. They not only make new discoveries that support the Bible, but they also discover why the \u201cproofs\u201d against its testimony were not really proofs after all. Faith in God and His Word is not primarily an intellectual issue; it is a spiritual one.
\n\u201cScientific\u201d arguments against the Bible come and go. Some are rather easily dismissed, while others hold sway for a good long while. Eventually, however, new evidence or new insight reveals that the Bible stands as the ultimate truth. It is the clock by which we set our lives. It is the ruler by which we measure ourselves. This volume is simply an account of the latest chapter in the never-ending story of God\u2019s ability to defend His Holy Word against the assaults of proud and arrogant unbelievers.
\nThe grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever (Isa. 40:8 KJV).
\nOf all the rocks which evolutionists have attempted to date, there is truly only one Rock worth dating and that is the Rock of Ages\u2014Jesus. He is not only worth \u201cdating,\u201d but worth marrying. (See fig. #70.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Introduction Questions, Questions, Questions How Old is the Earth? How Old is the universe? Isn\u2019t the Earth billions of years old? Isn\u2019t it absurd that some suggest the Bible claims creation took place only 6,000 years ago? Are there really scores of ways to show that the Earth and the universe are very young? Doesn\u2019t … <\/p>\n