This is from a report I did for Biology class in High School. I have not modified the text, except for the name line. That means that there will be grammatical and other language-derived errors. Furthermore, the reasoning may not be as logical as I could make it today. However, I make no appologies for the content...
The Age of the Earth: By Radiometric Dating
Most people know that the Evolutionary Model calls for millions and billions of years in its timeline, and that Evolutionists claim that radiometric dating, using the decay of radioactive elements to date objects, proves that the earth is as old as they say. Actually, though, the earth has been shown to have a young age, which agrees with the Creation Model, because of the unreliability of some dating methods, the change in the amounts of Carbon -14, and the existence of Polonium halos in granite.
Radiometric dating, or isochron dating as it is sometimes called, employs the knowledge that elements that are radioactive, those that give off particles or energy (Finkle), decay at a given rate. If the amounts of the parent element (isotope of a given element) and the daughter isotope, along with the decay rate are known, the time that the element has been decaying can be found. The equation for the time in a standard isochron dating is:
(Isochron)
Where D stands for amount of the daughter isotope and P for the amount of the parent isotope.
This is an accurate way to date an object, when the following conditions are met:
None of the daughter isotope could have been in the
sample when it was formed
(Isochron)
- None of the parent or daughter isotope could have entered
or left the sample (Isochron),
which is a closed system (Morris 138)
- The decay rate has to have been constant (138)
Evolutionists maintain that all three of these conditions are true; if any of them are not true then the date is not a valid date. Creationists say that it is impossible for all of these conditions to be true because:
- It is improbable that none of the daughter isotope was
present at the time of formation - There is no such thing as a closed system
- Every rate is changeable with the right conditions. (Morris 139)
This now becomes the crux of the problem. It is a highly debated issue whether or not radiometric dating is true, and if it is true, whether it shows a young earth or an old earth.
Evolutionists claim that the earth is 4.55 billion years old (Faq-Age), and creationists claim that the earth is 6,000 - 10,000 years old (imp-189). Which dates are correct?
Two popular isochron dating methods are the Uranium to Lead decay (both 238U/206Pb and 235U/207Pb) and the Potassium to Argon decay (40K/40Ar). Both of these yield an old age for the earth so therefore they are used by Evolutionists to combat Creation. But both have the
same problem that all radiometric dating has, they are based on uniformitarianism, the belief that every process has remained unchanged (Morris 98). This means that the decay rates have remained constant and that the entry or exit of atoms has not contaminated the amounts of the isotopes.
Lead can capture free neutrons from its environment; this can cause 208Pb, one of lead’s radioactive isotopes, without having to have decayed from 238U and 207Pb without 235U (140-141).
Not only can radioactive lead be formed without having to go through the decay process, but also lead can move through rocks, as can uranium, therefore it can cause a rock to appear older
than it is. This movement can also cause different ages for the same rock layer in the same locale (141).
The idea that the rate of decay has been constant is not valid. The decay rate of U can be changed by neutrinos (142), which come from the sun.
Volcanoes have shown that lava can get both U and Pb from the interior of the earth, which make the volcanic rocks to look much older than they really are (143).
40K/40Ar dates are not good because if the rock is heated to or above 125°C (257°F) it will show what the ratio was at the time of heating (Finkle).
The 1986 dacile flow from Mount St. Helens received, from K-Ar dating, the ridiculous date of 0.35 ± 0.05 million years old. The minerals in the rock received ages of 0.34 ± 0.06 and 2.8 ±
0.6 million years old. As it can be seen, the rocks formed in 1986 are not millions of years old (sa).
Carbon-14 is used to date anything that was once alive (Humphreys). Willard Libby, an American scientist, designed the Carbon-14 method in 1947 (Finkle). The method is based on the fact that when cosmic rays strike 14N (the stable form of nitrogen) if can form 14C (a
radioactive isotope of Carbon) (Humphreys).
Like all radiometric-dating methods Carbon-14 also has to follow certain guidelines. The initial ratio of 14C to 12C must be known and the decay rate has to be constant. And for C-14 the problem is with the ratio (Humphreys).
The method is like this: Living plants breathe in the radioactive carbon from carbon dioxide and it is put into molecules that animals eat. The amount of 14C in a living organism remains the same because the organism takes in as much Carbon-14 as is decayed or passed out of its system. When the organism dies it stops taking in the radioactive carbon and so the 14C decays until no C-14 is left (Finkle).
Evolutionists admit errors, but they say that because the errors are only 2,000 - 5,000 years that it is not that detrimental. The upper limit that they set for reliability is 50,000 (Finkle) to 80,000 years (Debate-age).
Although dates of 50,000 years are received from Carbon-14 dating, it is easy to show why. Ninety percent of the dates for C-14 dating are young (Humphreys) and the other 10% are high because of the effects of the Flood. The canopy that was above the earth blocked out the radiation that causes C-14 (Remnant) and so the amount of C-14 was very close to zero. The stronger magnetic field that the earth had would also deflect the radiation away from the earth also (Humphreys).
This lower amount of Carbon-14 in the biosphere would make it look like the organic material was decaying for a longer time than it really was. Because the C-14 was 1/16 smaller before the
Flood Carbon-14 dating needs to account for that. When it is, all of the "old" dates then become "young" (Humphreys).
Another proof of the lower C-14 is that all of the C-14 currently in the biosphere could have been built up in 8,000 years, one of the higher ends of the creation model dates (agee). And even Evolutionists admit that the amount of Carbon-14 can change, like it has since 1950 (Finkle)
Just these three dating methods alone show that all radiometric dating can be called into question. But Evolutionists claim that just because "one wristwatch has failed to keep time properly cannot be used as a justification for discarding all watches" (Faq-Age). They claim that the "assumptions" that the decay is not steady do not have enough evidence (Faq-Age). How much evidence is enough?
One of the largest attacks on Evolutionary time scale is the appearance of radioactive polonium halos in the lowest layer of rock, primordial granite, found by Dr. Robert V. Gentry, the recognized leader in the field of radioactive halos (Gentry 32). Po halos are the rings left from the alpha particles escaping from the center, the Po nuclei.
Polonium halos have "nothing at all to do with ‘dating’" (debate-age) is the cry made by some Evolutionists. In a way they are right, but look at the evidence:
Evolutionists believe that the earth formed slowly, cooling down after several years and became hard rock many years later (po-halos). Polonium-218, a radioactive element in the Uranium decay series, has a half-life of 3 minutes. For granite to contain halos made by 218Po the granite had to have cooled very quickly. The long period of time given for the earth to cool is incorrect (Gentry 32). This calls into question the time frame that Evolutionists have given.
Evolutionists have been quick to try to find another way for the Po halos to form and still be in the granite. From saying that the granites cooled slowly and the Po came from U towards the end of the cooling (csun), that the Po halos came from 206Pb that went to 214Po to 210Po and then back to 206Pb (po-halos), and that he was mistaken on what he was looking at (po-halos).
Gentry has defended himself on all of the counts, yet he still was and is discriminated against. He was denied funds from the National Science Foundation, even though some of his colleagues who were studying the same thing received funds (Gentry 76).
As some of the Evolutionists say, the Po halos do not have anything to do with the dating of the earth, but they do call for a redefining of the earth’s history of formation. The Evolutionary model for the origin of the earth is definitely refuted and so far no one has come up with a counter to Gentry’s finds. So although not pinpointing an exact date for the age of the earth the Po halos do show that it is a young earth, not an old one.
As it was shown earlier, radiometric dating is not very reliable when viewed from a uniformitarianism point of view. The decay rates of some of the isotopes have been changed, deeply questioning the Uranium-Lead results; the amounts of C-14 have changed showing that the earth is young; the Po halos in the granite show that the earth did not take a long time to cool, but was made almost instantaneously.
The entire Evolutionary time scale is based on the belief that every process has been going on since the beginning of time. And when the Flood is ignored, and for that matter the Bible, Evolution seems to make sense. But the evidence when viewed from a Biblical perspective clearly points to creation.
So why the controversy? The Bible has the answer:
First of all, you must understand that in the last days
scoffers will come…They will say…Ever since our
fathers died, everything goes on as it has since the
beginning of creation. But they deliberately forget that
long ago by God’s word the heavens existed and the
earth was formed out of water and by water. By these
waters also the world of that time was deluged and
destroyed (2 Peter 3:3-7).
Even the Bible say that people will come and try to push
uniformitarianism and that in their calculations they will
purposely leave out the Flood. This accounts for the discrepancy
of the dates that occur in radiometric dating. So the earth is
young by radiocarbon dating, when viewed from God’s point of
view.
Works Cited
Finkl, Charles W. Jr.: "Dating Methods" Microsoft Encarta. 1994.
Gentry, Robert V. Creation’s Tiny Mystery. Knoxville, Tennessee: Earth Science Associates, 1988
Holy Bible. NIV
http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/05agee2.htm
http://www2.biglobe.ne.jp/~remnant/creation.html
http://www.csun.edu/~vcgeo005/gentry/canada.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/sa/sa-r01.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/debate-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos.html
Morris, Henry Madison (ed.). Scientific Creationism. El Cajon, California: Master Books, 1985.
"Radiocarbon, Creation and the Genesis Flood."" Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Creation Videos a
ministry of Creation Science Foundation, 1992.
