The Arsenal Files 4/The Arsenal Files 4 (Arsenal Computer).ISO/spirit/met9408a.txt

Text File | 1995-01-27 | 10KB | 168 lines

                           ESSAYS ON ORIGINS:

                            The Dating Game
                     by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.

                  This version copyright (c) 1994 by:
                   Missouri Association for Creation
 _____________________________________________________________________

  [No. 14 in a series]                     August 1994, Vol. 4, No. 8
 _____________________________________________________________________

   Much of the controversy between evolutionists and creationists
concerns the age of the earth and its fossils.  Evolution, depending as
it does on pure chance, requires an immense amount of time to stumble
upon anything remotely approaching the complexity we see in even the
simplest living things.  For over 100 years, geologists have attempted
to devise methods for determining the age of the earth that would be
consistent with evolutionary dogma.  At the time Darwin's _On the Origin
of Species_ was published the earth was "scientifically" determined to
be 100 million years old.  By 1932, it was found to be 1.6 billion years
old.  In 1947, geologists firmly established that the earth was 3.4
billion years old.  Finally in 1976, they discovered that the earth is
"really" 4.6 billion years old.  These dates indicate that for 100
years, the age of the earth doubled every 20 years.  If this trend were
to continue, the earth would be 700 thousand-trillion-trillion-trillion
years old by the year 4000 AD.  This "prediction," however, is based on
selected data and certain assumptions that might not be true.  As we
will see, selected data and unprovable assumptions are a problem with
all methods for determining the age of the earth, as well as for dating
its fossils and rocks.  It has all become something of a "dating game"
in which only the evolutionarily-correct are allowed to play.

   The most widely-used method for determining the age of _fossils_ is
to date them by the "known age" of the _rock strata_ in which they are
found. On the other hand, the most widely-used method for determining
the age of the rock strata is to date them by the "known age" of the
fossils they contain.  This is an outrageous case of _circular
reasoning_, and geologists are well aware of the problem.  J.E.
O'Rourke, for example, concedes:

   "The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in
   the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks.  The
   geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling
   the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work
   brings results" (_American Journal of Science_ 1976, 276:51).

In this "circular dating" method, all ages are based on evolutionary
assumptions about the date and order in which fossilized plants and
animals are believed to have evolved.

   Most people are surprised to learn that there is, in fact, no way to
_directly_ determine the age of any fossil or rock.  The so called
"absolute" methods of dating (radiometric methods) actually only measure
the _present_ ratios of radioactive isotopes and their decay products in
suitable specimens -- not their age.  These measured ratios are then
extrapolated to an "age" determination.  This extrapolation is based on
the fact that an unstable (radioactive) chemical element, called the
_parent isotope_, breaks down at a _presently known rate_ to form a more
stable _daughter isotope_.  In the case of radiocarbon dating, an
unstable isotope of carbon (C14) decays to a more stable form of carbon
(C12).  This currently occurs at a rate which would be expected to
_reduce_ the quantity of the parent C14 by _half_ every 5,730 years (the
half-life).  In other words, the less of the parent isotope (and the
more of the daughter isotope) we measure in a specimen, the older we
assume it to be.

   Radiocarbon dating is actually of little use to evolutionists.  There
are several reasons for this.  First, no rocks and very few fossils
contain measurable quantities of carbon of any kind.  Second, because of
the short half-life of C14, the radiocarbon method can only date
specimens up to about 40,000 years of age.  Essentially nothing of
evolutionary significance is believed to have occurred in this "short"
time frame.  The most commonly used radiometric methods for "dating"
geological specimens are potassium-argon, uranium-thorium-lead, and
strontium-rubidium.  All three of these decay processes have half-lives
measured in billions of years.  None of these methods can be used on
fossils or the sedimentary rock in which fossils are found.  All
radiometric dating (with the exception of carbon dating) must be done on
igneous rocks (rocks solidified from a molten state such as lava). These
radiometric "clocks" begin keeping time when the molten rock solidifies.
Since fossils are never found in igneous rocks, one can only date lava
flows that are occasionally found between layers of sedimentary rock.

   The problem with all radiometric "clocks" is that their accuracy
critically depends on several starting assumptions which are largely
unknowable.  To date a specimen by radiometric means, one must first
know the _starting amount_ of the parent isotope at the beginning of the
specimen's existence.  Second, one must be certain that there were no
daughter isotopes in the beginning.  Third, one must be certain that
neither parent nor daughter isotopes have ever been _added_ or _removed_
from the specimen.  And fourth, one must be certain that the _decay
rate_ of parent isotope to daughter isotope has always been the same.
That one or more of these assumptions are often invalid is obvious from
the published radiometric "dates" (to say nothing of unpublished dates)
found in the literature.

   One of the most obvious problems is that several samples from the
same location often give widely-divergent ages.  Apollo moon samples,
for example, were dated by both uranium-thorium-lead and potassium-argon
methods, giving results which varied from 2 million to 28 billion years.
Lava flows from volcanoes on the north rim of the Grand Canyon (which
erupted after its formation) show potassium-argon dates a billion years
"older" than the most ancient basement rocks at the bottom of the
canyon.  Lava from underwater volcanoes near Hawaii (that are known to
have erupted in 1801 AD) have been "dated" by the potassium-argon method
with results varying from 160 million to nearly 3 billion years.  No
wonder the laboratories that "date" rocks insist on knowing in advance
the "evolutionary age" of the strata from which the samples were taken
-- this way, they know which dates to accept as "reasonable" and which
to ignore.  Of one thing you may be sure: whenever "absolute"
radiometric dates are in substantial disagreement with evolutionary
assumptions about the age of associated fossils, the fossils always
prevail.

   As far as the plausibility of evolution is concerned, it really
doesn't make any difference if the earth is 10 billion years old or 10
thousand years old.  Indeed, if the whole of evolution were reduced to
nothing more than the chance production of a single copy of any one
biologically useful protein, there would be insufficient time and
material in the known universe to make this even remotely likely.  Time
by itself simply does not make the hopeless evolutionary scenario of
chance and natural selection more reasonable.  Imagine if a child were
to claim that he alone could build a Boeing 747 airplane from raw
material in 10 seconds, and another were to claim he could do it in 10
days.  Would we consider the later less foolish then the former, simply
because he proposed spending nearly a million times more time at the
task?  Our Creator tells that "the fool has said in his heart, there is
no God."
_______________________________________________________________________

Dr. Menton received his Ph.D. in Biology from Brown University.  He has
been involved in biomedical research and education for over 30 years.

Dr. Menton is President of the Missouri Association for Creation, Inc.

                        Originally published in:
                          St. Louis MetroVoice
                             PO Box 220010
                          St. Louis, MO  63122
_______________________________________________________________________

            Corrections and revisions have been made by the
              author from the original published essay.

                This text file prepared and distributed
                   by the Genesis Network (GenNet).

          Origins Talk -- [phone], Walt Stumper, Sysop.
                          FidoNet, 1:100/435; FamilyNet, 8:3006/28;
                          GenNet, 33:6250/1
                          [e-mail]
                          [e-mail]
                          Voice: [phone]

          Genesis Network I -- [phone], Jim Johnston, Sysop.
                          FidoNet, 1:3609/11; FamilyNet, 8:3111/0;
                          GenNet, 33:6150/0
                          CompuServe: 73642,2576
                          Voice: [phone]

                Contact either of the above systems for
              information about file distribution and echos.

                              --- *** ---