I would like to address two questions in this essay. First, if the earth is so young, why can we see star light from billions of lightyears away? Second, is radiometric dating reliable?
The answer to the first question is that, contrary to what Einstein believed, light is not a constant. Scientists in the laboratory have been able to slow down, stop, and even speed up the speed of light.
https://www.livescience.com/396-scientists-mess-speed-light.html
Also the speed of light is naturally getting slower. They have discovered this by seeing how starlight interacts with the universe as they have measured the speed of light over the past 300 years. The results reveal that it is getting slower.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/has-speed-of-light-slowed-down/
http://www.ldolphin.org/constc.shtml
Finally, it turns out that evolutionists actually have the same problem, known as the horizon problem. Even thinking the universe is 13 billion years old, scientists have still concluded that light should not yet have reached the far edges of space. So too the evolutionists have concluded light used to go a lot faster. We actually agree on something.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/was-speed-light-even-faster-early-universe-180961233/
This also means that Einstein’s famous equation E=mc2 (energy equals mass multiplied by the square of the speed of light) can no longer be used to determine E (energy) because c (the speed of light) is an unknown. The atomic number is divided by energy to determine a decay constant. All radiometric dating methods depend on the decay constant being, well, constant. Thus all radiometric dating methods depend on light being constant while it is not.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger–Nuttall_law
Now, let’s talk about the problems with radiometric dating. There are many radiometric dating methods, but the most famous three are carbon 14 dating, uranium-lead dating, and potassium-argon dating. All three of these work by measuring the amount of daughter element in a sample (carbon 12, lead, and argon respectively) and calculating the amount of time for this amount of daughter elements to form from their parent elements by using today’s observed half-life rate of the parent elements.
But this method makes a number of assumptions. Let’s use a burning candle as an example. Let’s say you entered a room and saw a burning candle. Then your friend asks you to determine how long it had been burning. The first thing you do is measure the length left in the candle. This represents the amount of daughter elements that are found in a sample. Next, you would observe the speed at which the candle is burning. This represents today’s observed half-life rate. However, in order to give an answer, you would have to make two assumptions. First, how tall the candle was at the start. This represents the amount of parent elements that were originally in the object. Second, the rate at which the candle was now burning is the speed at which the candle had always burned. Both of these assumptions are unknowns.
Now let’s talk about the three methods specifically. First, carbon 14 dating. The theory behind carbon 14 dating is cosmic rays hit the atmosphere and generate carbon 14. Plants then absorb this carbon 14 so that they end up with the same ratio of carbon 14 and carbon 12 as is present in the atmosphere. Then when an herbivore eats the plant they end up with this same ratio. And finally when a carnivore eats the herbivore they also end up with the same ratio. So at the time of death, any organism has the same ratio of carbon 14 as the atmosphere; but as time goes on, carbon 14 decays into the more stable carbon 12 isotope. I would like to note that carbon dating can thus only be used for dating things that were once living. I have personally seen where a peer-reviewed scientific article ascribed a date to inorganic objects by using the carbon dating method. This is, of course, nothing short of a flat-out lie.
Assumption #1: Cosmic rays are constant.
If the earth was truly 5 billion years old, then cosmic rays have increased 30% since the beginning as the sun grew older. Sunspots change the rate of cosmic rays. Also the earth’s magnetic field has been decreasing in strength which acts as a shield against cosmic rays. Evolutionists claim the magnetic field reverses every so often. If this is true, it would really through carbon dating off.
Assumption #2: Atmospheric carbon 14 is always constant.
Melting glaciers and volcanic eruptions add C12 to the atmosphere distorting the C14/C12 ratio. This is why living plants on the Greek volcanic island of Santorini were dated to have died 1,000 years ago. Just imagine what a global flood would do to this ratio.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
Assumption #3: Plants absorb the same percentage of C14 as is in the atmosphere.
It has been demonstrated that there are different percentages of C14 levels in different tree layers corresponding to the constantly changing percentages of C14 in the atmosphere. This is known as the De Vries effect. This has been corrected by calibrating carbon dating by determining the amount of carbon in tree rings. However, trees only live so long. But the question that comes to my mind is if trees are used to calibrate carbon dating, how can carbon dating be used to determine the age of our oldest trees?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hessel_de_Vries
Assumption #4: Herbivores acquires the same percentage of C14.
Living mollusks were carbon dated and found to be 27,000 years old. Living snails were carbon-14 dated at 2,300 and 27,000 years old. Evolutionists say this is because they got carbon from another secondary source.
Rivers also have reduced C14 concentrations because of C12 obtained from rocks being eroded by the river. And thus, whatever drinks from rivers is affected. This also effects ocean animals at the mouths of rivers. Animals that eat dirt rich in carbon also have different C14 concentrations. And, of course, whatever eats these animals will also have distorted C14 concentrations.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_3.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
Assumption #5: Carnivores acquire the same percentage of C14.
A freshly killed seal dated 1,300 years old. Evolutionists say this is because they got carbon from deep in the ocean. It has been found that C14 concentrations in the oceans are very inconsistent.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011_4.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating_considerations
Assumption #6: The decay rate is constant.
Decay rates have been observed not to be constant to some degree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radioactive_decay#Changing_decay_rates
Assumption #7: There was no canopy of water over the atmosphere to disrupt cosmic rays like the Bible indicates.
Second, Uranium-lead dating. Uranium dating was used to determine the age of the Taung child ape-man. However, since they needed the results to be 2.3 million years ago instead of 1 million years ago to fit with the scheduled evolution of man, they decided to admit that contamination was highly probable after all.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/quaternary-research/article/new-isotopic-and-sedimentological-measurements-of-the-thabaseek-deposits-south-africa-and-the-dating-of-the-taung-hominid/6E9190C34D2DF04B7E4FF627B9421D7F
In order to arrive at 4.5 billion years for the existence of the solar system, uranium lead was measured on 3 meteorites. However, it has been proven that there is not enough uranium to account for all the lead on meteorites, thus for the 4.5-billion-year-result, the 3 meteorites were purposely selected.
This Nature article says “ … it is not widely appreciated, outside the ranks of those who work directly in geochronology or meteoritics that, judged by modern standards, the meteoritic lead-lead isochron is very poorly established.”
“This (work) shows unequivocally for the first time that there is indeed a real problem in the uranium/lead evolution in meteorites, in that in each of these meteorites there is now insufficient uranium to support the lead isotope composition.”
“It therefore follows that the whole of the classical interpretation of the meteorite lead isotope data is in doubt, and that the radiometric estimates of the age of the Earth are placed in jeopardy.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/physci240056a0
Third, potassium-argon dating. Again it is a false assumption that the K40/K39 ratio is always constant. K40 is involved in weather cycles and nutrient cycling. The list of carbon dating assumptions shows how subject to change these are, especially with a global flood. It is also extremely easy for samples to be contaminated with the K40 in the air. It has also been shown that other sources of Ar40 are possible. Examples include glassy deep-sea basalts and contamination of magma by older rocks.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K–Ar_dating
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isotopes_of_potassium
Finally, experiments have been done that have shown that various isotopes have decayed at a rate of 10,000 times greater in the presence of heated and pressurized water-exactly as would have been the conditions of the global flood. We can assume this could be true for any radiometric dating method.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0375960109004113
Creationists have their own radiometric dating isotope, Polonium-lead. Granite is claimed to be formed as the earth’s molten crust cooled over millions of years. However, unstable polonium 218 atoms are found in granite across the world which could have only existed 30 minutes before it had to have solidified in order to preserve it. Otherwise it would have changed into lead. Polonium 214 is also found in granite all over the world. It would have changed into lead in 0.001637 seconds. Therefore granite with Polonium 214 present had to have formed instantaneously. Or, in other words, granite must have been the result of a supernatural creation. Many attempts are made to claim samples were contaminated. However, these same contamination pathways must also be possible for evolutionists dating methods.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleochroic_halo
RSS Feed
