Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 5) Scientific Evidence Against Radiometric Dating

This post is more difficult to write than my last two about radiometric dating. If you read those posts, you remember I said that secular geologists are uniform in their support of radiometric dating. This is true, but though I've said the evidence is very convincing, there are a lot of samples and evidence that we normally don't hear about, that are not factored into the equation of the old-earth samples, that do not agree with them. These are usually not taken seriously by scientists, who dismiss them as anomalous.

1. C-14 dating sometimes yields inaccurate dates. Christian Answers at, http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c007.html, says the following:
"plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing 14C. That is, they take up less than would be expected and so they test older than they really are...Second, the ratio of 14C/12C in the atmosphere has not been constant—for example, it was higher before the industrial era when the massive burning of fossil fuels released a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in 14C. This would make things which died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating."

The article goes on to say that C-14 dating is cross-referenced with history to obtain correct dates on most carbon dated items. Thus, there is uncertainty in C-14 dating, though it is a helpful dating tool.

2. Dating of radioactive rocks (K-Ar and the like) seem to have less inconsistency than C-14, but still sometimes yield dates that appear to be off the mark. Christian Answers notes one such example:

"Researchers applied posterior reasoning to the dating of Australopithecus ramidus fossils.[10] Most samples of basalt closest to the fossil-bearing strata give dates of about 23 Ma (Mega annum, million years) by the argon-argon method. The authors decided that was “too old,” according to their beliefs about the place of the fossils in the evolutionary grand scheme of things. So they looked at some basalt further removed from the fossils and selected 17 of 26 samples to get an acceptable maximum age of 4.4 Ma. The other nine samples again gave much older dates but the authors decided they must be contaminated and discarded them. That is how radiometric dating works. It is very much driven by the existing long-age world view that pervades academia today."

The conclusion in clear, the fossils bore the brunt of the weight in this dating of an ancient hominid. So, it is true that most dates off the mark are corrected for by scientists who look for evidence that is more in accord with their worldview. How much this happens is up for debate. Geologist John Woodmorappe, an ardent Creationist makes a career of documenting "adjusted evidence" like that in the paragraph above.

While almost all secular geologists form a consensus about the age of earth's rocks and fossils, it is clear that not everyone agrees. Ben Stein has made a good case in his movie "Expelled" that academia does not always form conclusions based on facts but on a prior scheme that forms the facts around a specific conclusion to be reached. That said, it still seems the arguments for radiometric dating have strong validity, though future discoveries and continued research could change things.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth (Part 4) Radiometric Dating's Scientific Support For

Let me by honest: radiometric dating is not out of my or your league to understand, but it is out of my league to explain it technically. Let's start by going back to our clock illustration:

1. A digital clock is observed to run dead at 12:30pm, today.
2. An expert does the math on the probable life of the battery.
3. The math indicates the clock has been running for a year.

This is the scientific essence of radiometric dating. The only difference is that the radioactive substances in the rocks of earth are the "batteries" of the clock. These substances tell how long a rock has been changing from one radioactive substance to another radioactive substance. The expert is the scientist who calculates the rock's life based on rate of change over time.

There are several forms of this dating.

1. Carbon 14-Carbon 14 is in the atmosphere. Living organsims ingest it. When they die, they stop ingestion (duh). Then C-14 starts to decay to lesser elements. The amount of C-14 left indicates at least the death point of the organism. This dating method is used widely to date young substances. Older substances are supposed to be devoid of C-14, because of its relatively short half-life. It works back a few thousand years.

2. Potassium-Argon dating is based on Potassium 40 decaying into Argon 40. It is based on exactly the same procedure as Carbon 14 dating, for the most part. It yields very old dates for some of earth's rocks (over 3 billion years).

3. Rubidium-Strontium dating is the same thing above with different elements. It too yields very old dates.

4. Isochron dating is different than the above methods. It is a "mixed bag" sample. A rock is sampled from its various component matter (crystals, and other diverse molecules). An average age is obtained from the samples using mathematics to factor in events that changed the various components of the rock over time to its various pieces. This average is a "checking mechanism" to give a better picture of the age of the whole rock.

As I said, these dating methods, on the whole, seem to be accurate, and the ones that yield old dates seem to point conclusively to an earth more than 4 billion years old. Geologists of the secular persuasion are uniform in their embrace of these methods. It is scientific dogma, and all the more, because in these cases we have actual tests (instead of unsightly conjectures--a hallmark of evolutionary biology schemes of life). I would also add that Creationists point out that some dates conflict, and seem to be in error. Other scientists are unconvinced, however, given the massive number of agreeing evidence samples.

This is all very convincing evidence to me too, even as a Christian who is historical in his interpretation of Scripture. However, I am inconclusive without further research.

Interesting Items in the News

I don't want to make an extensive posting today (I'm tired), but I'll offer some snippets from the news.




1. Pastor Rick Warren is traveling in some strange circles today. He has become bosom buddies with Barak Obama and some of Obama's constituency over the last few years. First, he invited Obama to a civil forum at his church, giving his Christian pulpit to the then radical pro-choice senator in the name of AIDS education and prevention. He supported his decision to do this as a matter of his common support of the AIDS prevention issue with Obama. Since then, Obama and John McCain traveled to Saddleback for a presidential questioning session. Finally, now president-elect Obama invited Warren to give the prayer at his swearing in. Now it seems Warren is mingling with gay activists who support Obama, including singer Melissa Ethridge. This is all very strange to me. I recently read an article the talked about this meeting and one in which Warren met with Muslim leaders, too. Here's a teaser quote:

"Rick Warren has told a Muslim group in California that 'You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand.' And at the same gathering, Warren also admitted he's a big fan of lesbian activist Melissa Ethridge and has all her albums.

Under fire for opposing gay marriage, the influential evangelical told the Muslim Public Affairs Council's annual convention Saturday that he loves Muslims, people of other religions, Republicans and Democrats, and he also loves "gays and straights."

The 54-year-old pastor and founder of Saddleback Church in Southern California told the crowd of 500 that it's unrealistic to expect everyone to agree on everything all the time.

"You don't have to see eye to eye to walk hand in hand," said Warren.

Sounds different from what the Lord said through Amos doesn't it? "How can two walk together lest they be agreed?"

Anyways, here is the link to the article:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Church/Default.aspx?id=362164

2. Barak Obama's birth certificate has still, to my knowledge, remained unrevealed. Why does no one care about this? Is it because Obama has been an active member of the United States citizenry for most of his life? Perhaps...the press is still saying very little about this issue. I think it is critical however, because it says something extremely important about how we regard our Constitution. May we change the law at our desire or convenience? Time will tell, and I think this issue may play a big part in that.



3. Toyota is showing losses for the first time ever this year. Wow. The Japanese are known for their work-ethic and frugality, and now they are in trouble in this economic slowdown as well. They are predicting a full year before recovery. To me, this says, "Hold on to your butts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride!" (Yep, that quote is from a Harry Potter movie.

Strange Facts and the Age of the Earth: Radiometric Dating (Part 3)

Radiometric dating has been around for a while now. Everyone has heard of Carbon 14 dating, a form of radiometric dating.

This method of dating earth's age amounts to a clock using atoms. Certain atoms change to other atoms over time. The amount of time to change them is called their half-life. A radioactive rock is obtained, its purity is assessed, and then it is tested to see how many atoms have changed into other atoms. The math is done for the amount of time for this process and an age of the rock is determined.

Many of these tests have been done in which earth rocks are dated to be over 3 billion years old. These tests serve as the main beachhead upon which old-earth geology is built. I can't write a long paper here, and don't want to be over-technical, so I will say straightforwardly that radiometric dating is very convincing evidence for an old earth.

However, it must be said that this method carries some big assumptions.

1. All radioactive rocks started off completely one atom type and changed to another.
2. The process has been undisturbed for eons.
3. The laws of physics have never altered.

These assumptions cannot be proven or dis-proven by science. I frankly don't know if they are true. However, I believe in a supernatural Creator who could play havoc with these assumptions. So God can do anything, and radiometric dating might give false results based on wrong assumptions that exclude God.

The alternative, which many Christian people take, is that the scientific results are correct, and Genesis is saying something different than the literal 24-hour six day theory many Creationist Christians assert. Various theories have been invented to change Genesis's interpretation to fit with old-earth scientific data, which has resulted in the "gap theory," the "day age theory," and other old-earth theories. Some of these theories are older than radiometric dating, but all give a Bible time-line that works well with an old earth.

I am still studying this issue (radiometric dating) and my conclusions are not complete. I will try to provide, in my next post, a basic pro-con argument set-up for the validity/falsity of radiometric dating according to scientific perspectives.
In a later post, I will try to address the various Scriptural theories devised based on the acceptance or rejection of radiometric results.

God's peace to you,

Greg

Political Afterthoughts: Obama's birth certificate

Many other writers and thinkers are more qualified than I to write on the election we have just experienced. I'll just say that I voted for McCain based on his support of issues that I support (the right of the unborn to life very important among them).

However, if one wants to read a good post on America's decision on Barak Obama as president-elect, I suggest reading Al Mohler's page at:

http://www.almohler.com/blog.php?selectMonth=11&selectYear=2008

Just cut and paste this link into your browser to read his "America Has Chosen a President." It deals with the cold realities people of Christian faith may face under the new administration.

More interesting (and distressing) at this point to me is the fact that Barak Obama's birth certificate has yet to be revealed. So far as I know, this issue is going unnoticed by a lot of people. The certificate of live birth revealed for Obama is widely not considered to constitute a declaration of US citizenship. The president-elect will formally be appointed (so far as I know) by the electoral college in 10 days, and it is not a sure fact that he is even a US citizen!

Joseph Farrah has written a short post about this matter, including a link to his petition for the Obama birth certificate to be revealed. Farrah's article can be read at:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=82648

I encourage you, reader, to sign Farrah's petition demanding that this matter be cleared up. Farrah urges his readers to take this issue seriously: "If the issues surrounding Obama's status as a natural born citizen are simply swept under the rug, then the Constitution simply no longer means what it says. It no longer limits officials from doing anything they feel like doing."

We are living in crazy times in our country. We may be living on the verge of a hard-left swing in American law, compounded by the ominous possibility that our government may now be shown to operate without regard for our charter document, the Constitution. Of course, we've all heard complaints about activist judges who "legislate from the bench," and manipulate the law in doing so, but this pattern is bad news. If our country may be steered off its foundations by the whims of men, without regard for the rule of law, what is next? What will we be asked (forced) to accept by our leaders? Ominous indeed.

Apology: The Lack of New Posts

Hello guys,

Thank you all for reading my blog. I haven't been able to post lately because of I've been busy. I'll try to post more often, now that I have been freed up a bit.

Greg