If evolution is not valid science, somebody should tell the scientists.

[Scholar in training]

The bible declares a young earth. It is not wrapped in symbolic or apocalyptic languages. It is straightrforwardly written and verified over and over and over again in scripture.

Ummm, and why is straightforward equated with "literal"?

 

[Willtor]

Ummm, and why is straightforward equated with "literal"?

The reason is that when anything is written, in any society, at any point in history, it is done so as a literal work unless explicitly stated otherwise. Anything beyond this would be confusing and take anthropological understanding on the part of the reader. Using the logical deductive method, "proof by laziness," therefore, we can show that Genesis is a literal sequence of events because it doesn't say otherwise.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Well your reponse says nothing in a lot of garbled philosophy. Jesus never went to the intellectual, but to those who could just simply accept what He said as Almighty God without all these fancy philosophical gymnastics.

He told Adam He created in six solart days--He meant it! Even without the vast modern scinentific terminology people use today--God in the simplicitly of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages could have conveyed evolution in simplisitic terms. But He didn't did He? NO! It took unbeleivers to propound a theory approx 5900 years after creation and becausae they couch it in pseudo science and throw in some facts it makes frail folk jettison the simplicity of Scripture for the complexity of human sophistry.

Evolution on the "macro" scale is an impossibility and falls outside the realm of swcinetific law and fact and within the realm of philosophy. All that we observe and can test and verify according to the scientific method proves scripture true. Despite the eloquent elucidation you just emitted.

Jesus drove out demons, does that mean that we ought to see all mental illness as demon possession and do likewise?

Jesus healed with spit and clay, does that mean that Christian doctors should do likewise?

Jesus did not eat pork, should we, do i sin everytime i eat a BLT sandwich?
Jesus spoke Aramaic should we, services were in Hebrew, does God listen to Hebrew better than to English prayers?
Jesus lived in Israel, should i emigrant, since Jerusalem is particularly holy, show i live there?
Jesus wore sandals, should i throw away my shoes?
Jesus wore a tunic or a robe, are my pants appropriate attire for church?

let the dead bury the dead, does that mean i sinned when i had my folks cremated?
should i have just left them there?

Jesus was Jewish, why am i a Christian then?
Jesus never married, should i have married, should i get a divorce over the issue? He never had kids, should i have kids?

i don't handle poisonous snakes during church services should i?
we don't speak in tongues nor in general dance in church, should i ask the elders why or just start doing it next Sunday morning?

we don't eat all our meals at church, nor do we have possessions in common, like the early church did, should i be a socialist?

The early church and the apostles thought Jesus was coming back quickly, should i sign a home mortgage?
Jesus told us to hate our parents and our brothers and sisters for his sake, i've only talked on the phone to my brother twice in 15 years so do i hate my brother enough to satisfy this commandment?

Jesus obeyed all the laws of Moses, should i be a theonomist then?
Jesus worshiped on Saturday, did i sin when i went to church yesterday, should i tell the Pastors and go to the messianic church this Friday evening?

The Mormon church is the only one i know of that has apostles, does that make it the one true church?

Women should wear head coverings in church, should i stand up next Sunday at worship and share this insight and ask all the ladies to put handkerchiefs on their heads?

The Bible supports slavery, should i go to the Sudan and buy someone?





are these simple enough questions to satisfy you?

 

[Willtor]

Well your reponse says nothing in a lot of garbled philosophy. Jesus never went to the intellectual, but to those who could just simply accept what He said as Almighty God without all these fancy philosophical gymnastics.

Jesus preached the gospel to anyone who would hear him. In general, this was the poor and the destitute. Intellectual capacity didn't really enter into it.

He told Adam He created in six solart days--He meant it! Even without the vast modern scinentific terminology people use today--God in the simplicitly of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages could have conveyed evolution in simplisitic terms. But He didn't did He? NO! It took unbeleivers to propound a theory approx 5900 years after creation and becausae they couch it in pseudo science and throw in some facts it makes frail folk jettison the simplicity of Scripture for the complexity of human sophistry.

The Scriptures have been called a lot of things by a lot of people. I've never read anything (until now) that argued they were simple. Awakening to faith in the gospel of grace through Jesus Christ? Yes, simple. The nature and content of the Scriptures? Simple, you say? News to me.

Evolution on the "macro" scale is an impossibility and falls outside the realm of swcinetific law and fact and within the realm of philosophy. All that we observe and can test and verify according to the scientific method proves scripture true. Despite the eloquent elucidation you just emitted.

No. I used to think the same thing. Now I do not. Speciation, the heart of "macro" evolution has been demonstrated in a variety of cases. Actually, new mechanisms of speciation are still being discovered. Many of the limitations evolutionists used to hold (with respect to speciation) are quickly disappearing.

Besides this, consider the following argument: if science is proving Scripture, why do we need Scripture? If science tells us the same things, and provides far more detail, Scripture is quickly becoming something of a relic, yes? If science is proving Scripture true, it's unfortunate that God only told us about things we could discover, naturally, on our own. . . if science is proving Scripture.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

The reason is that when anything is written, in any society, at any point in history, it is done so as a literal work unless explicitly stated otherwise. Anything beyond this would be confusing and take anthropological understanding on the part of the reader. Using the logical deductive method, "proof by laziness," therefore, we can show that Genesis is a literal sequence of events because it doesn't say otherwise.

where does in poetry does it explicitly state "this is a poem", yet i bet you can recognize poetry.

where is the line between history and historical fiction, especially really good historical fiction like: James Frey's A Million Little Pieces which claimed to be factual?

why should the default be true, historical, literal etc. wouldn't a safer and more reasonable default given the propensity of people to lie be a story?

why create a rule for all societies in all times?
isn't just figuring out all these things for our own time and place hard enough?

it's already confusing, you seem to be adding to the difficulties with this rule, not clarifying the situation.

...

 

[rmwilliamsll]

if science is proving Scripture, why do we need Scripture? If science tells us the same things, and provides far more detail, Scripture is quickly becoming something of a relic, yes?

The Moslems invaded Egypt during the seventh century as their fanaticism carried them on conquests that would take form an empire stretching from Spain to India. There was not much of a struggle in Egypt and the locals found the rule of the Caliph to be more tolerant than that of the Byzantines before them. However, when a Christian called John informed the local Arab general that there existed in Alexandria a great Library preserving all the knowledge in the world he was perturbed. Eventually he sent word to Mecca where Caliph Omar ordered that all the books in the library should be destroyed because, as he said "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous." Therefore, the books and scrolls were taken out of the library and distributed as fuel to the many bathhouses of the city. So enormous was the volume of literature that it took six months for it all to be burnt to ashes heating the saunas of the conquerors.

from: http://www.bede.org.uk/library.htm

 

[Scholar in training]

The early church and the apostles thought Jesus was coming back quickly, should i sign a home mortgage?

They didn't think this.

Jesus told us to hate our parents and our brothers and sisters for his sake, do i hate my brother enough to satisfy this commandent?

Hyperbole, common form of language for the area and timeperiod. Jesus did not mean to hate your family.

 

[Willtor]

where does in poetry does it explicitly state "this is a poem", yet i bet you can recognize poetry.

where is the line between history and historical fiction, especially really good historical fiction like: James Frey's A Million Little Pieces which claimed to be factual?

why should the default be true, historical, literal etc. wouldn't a safer and more reasonable default given the propensity of people to lie be a story?

why create a rule for all societies in all times?
isn't just figuring out all these things for our own time and place hard enough?

it's already confusing, you seem to be adding to the difficulties with this rule, not clarifying the situation.

...

Sorry. There isn't a good smilie to help me with my dry form of sarcasm. I thought "proof by laziness" would give it away. I was making explicit what I see to be the implicit arguments for YEC I have read in this thread.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Sorry. There isn't a good smilie to help me with my dry form of sarcasm. I thought "proof by laziness" would give it away. I was making explicit what I see to be the implicit arguments for YEC I have read in this thread.

no it is my fault for reading too literally and looking for historical truthfulness.

 

[Willtor]

no it is my fault for reading too literally and looking for historical truthfulness.

Haha! No, don't be too hard on yourself. After all, you were only applying the straight-forward (aka - literal) method of interpretation. You might even say I was lying to you by writing it.

 

[shernren]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to rmwilliamsll again.

false statement for a "billion" year old rock looks just like a hundred year old rock and the suppossed irrefutable radiometric methods of dating are invaslid as accurate chronometers.

Wow, a creationist is quoting me out of context! I thought they only did that to famous scientists! FYI, I was talking about apparent-age theorists and how they believe that even though a rock is only 6,000 years old, God created it with 4.5 billion years' worth of decay. I wasn't saying anything about the veracity of radiometric dating. But hey, since you brought it up, do prove so to me - that radiometric dating is an inaccurate chronometer.

And yes Jesus validated both the flood and Adam and Eve as expounded in the word-- so to say evolution is true and the global flood is myth or just localized is to call into question the veracity of Jesus.

Nuts, 7 is a nice number, why did you have to spoil it and make it 8? again, prove with quotations. I suppose you can explain why all of us second-class Christians here who don't believe in the 6-day creation and the global flood still vouch very much for the veracity of Jesus?

He told Adam He created in six solart days--He meant it! Even without the vast modern scinentific terminology people use today--God in the simplicity of the Hebrew and Aramaic languages could have conveyed evolution in simplisitic terms. But He didn't did He? NO! It took unbeleivers to propound a theory approx 5900 years after creation and becausae they couch it in pseudo science and throw in some facts it makes frail folk jettison the simplicity of Scripture for the complexity of human sophistry.

Actually, no. Exhibit A: creationists, who just can't seem to agree on a definition of evolution. If there was a simple way to explain it you all would have gotten it by now, wouldn't you?

Standard definition: Evolution is the change in proportion of alleles in a gene pool driven by natural selection and mutation. Out of all that the only concept a pre-scientific society would have gotten is "natural selection", besides possibly, possibly, possibly, "gene pool".

And how do you know that God would have wanted to tell the people about evolution if He had used it? Do you know the mind of God in this? Would God have considered evolution absolutely necessary as the beginning of His story of sin and redemption? Besides, the Bible never says God told Adam that He created the world in 6 days.

 

[nolidad]

Wow, a creationist is quoting me out of context! I thought they only did that to famous scientists! FYI, I was talking about apparent-age theorists and how they believe that even though a rock is only 6,000 years old, God created it with 4.5 billion years' worth of decay. I wasn't saying anything about the veracity of radiometric dating. But hey, since you brought it up, do prove so to me - that radiometric dating is an inaccurate chronometer.

Well shernren sorry for the misqoute-- many people use that term in differing ways, I should have asked how you meant. Mea Culpa

Nuts, 7 is a nice number, why did you have to spoil it and make it 8? again, prove with quotations. I suppose you can explain why all of us second-class Christians here who don't believe in the 6-day creation and the global flood still vouch very much for the veracity of Jesus?

37But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.
38For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

Matt 24.

Luke 17:

26And as it was in the days of Noe, so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.
27They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Hebrews 11:

By faith Noah, being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house; by the which he condemned the world, and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith.

1 Peter 3:

19By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison;
20Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water. 21The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God,) by the resurrection of Jesus Christ: Remember it was Jesus who went down to preach to these souls who didn't die in a mythical global flood.

Ok for the flood onto Adam.

Matthew 19:

4And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.

Direstly qouting when God married Adam and Eve and established marriage.

So if evolution is the truth and not divine creation why did not God reveal this to His OT chosen people the Jews or HIs NT chosen people the church?? After all we are the ambassadors of God tasked to bring the truth of God to the world!! I am not talking about the detailed minutae of evolution but the basic concept of instead of inspiring the Writers of Scripture with a 6 day creation- He could have used language to tell us of long long ages and changes from one kind to another instead of each producing after its own kind as we see today (except of course intelligent reengineering by experiment). Why did God leave the church out of this-- and have unbeleivers promote and evangelize this suppossed truth that stands in opposition to the Word???

But hey, since you brought it up, do prove so to me - that radiometric dating is an inaccurate chronometer.

Well for this I can only pass you on to the 2 volume set of research over 4years by the RATE team. It is about 85 dollars and 1400+ pages if youa re interested in having some long standing theories shaken up.

Here are some very brief reasons without all the research (sorry- you gotta buy the books if you want the research):

RADIOISOTOPE CHARTS
In theory, the charts below look impressive. But it is all theory. The real world would have greatly altered these theoretical decay time spans. Here are 12 factors which will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter:
(1) No contamination could have been present, although out in nature it is very much present most of the time.
(2) No daughter products could initially be present, although there is no valid reason why they could not initially have been present in great abundance.
(3) The decay rate could never change, although there are a number of significant outside factors which could easily have effected those changes.
(4) The Van Allen radiation belt must never have changed, although our first data on it only goes back to 1959.
(5) The decay clock within each radioactive substance had to start at the beginning, but Creation would have begun with flowers, trees and other items in full maturity, so why not radioactive cycles as well?
(6) No end products could originally be mixed in with the parent substances, but this is merely another assumption.
(7) No leaching of radioactive substances could have taken place, but those substances were out in nature where rainfall and underground water is constantly flowing, not in a sterile laboratory.
(8) No neutron capture could have occurred, but research reveals that it can easily occur in nature.
(9) According to the theory, the earth was originally molten. If that were true, then radical resetting of radioactive clocks would have occurred.
(10) The daughter products must be measured as a ratio of the parent substance in order to obtain a date, but, aside from leaching and other factors, some of the daughter products go off in the form of gases.
(11) Laboratory analysis of each specimen must be done with extreme accuracy, yet verification has revealed that this is often not done.
(12) All specimen test results should agree with one another, but this occurs with only the most extreme rarity. The dates obtained greatly conflict with one another.

 

[nolidad]

But hey, since you brought it up, do prove so to me - that radiometric dating is an inaccurate chronometer

Some more for you:

FIVE RADIOMETRIC DATING INACCURACIES—Here are some of the reasons why we cannot rely on radioactive dating of uranium and thorium:
(1) Lead could originally have been mixed in with the uranium or thorium. This is very possible, and even likely. It is only an assumption that integral or adjacent lead could only be an end-product.



In addition, there is "common lead, "which has no radioactive parent (lead 204). This could easily be mixed into the sample and would seriously affect the dating of that sample. *Adolph Knopf referred to this important problem (Scientific Monthly, November1957). Faul, an authority in the field, recognized it also:

"It is very likely that 'primordial lead,' or the lead that was made with all the other elements at the time of nucleogenesis, was well mixed. When the earth's crust was formed, the primordial lead was frozen into rocks that also contained uranium and thorium in various ratios to lead." —*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology, (1954), p. 297.



​

When a uranium sample is tested for dating purposes, it is assumed that the entire quantity of lead in it is "daughter-product lead" (that is, the end-product of the decayed uranium). The specimen is not carefully and thoroughly checked for possible "common lead" content, because it is such a time-consuming task. Yet it is that very uranium-lead ratio which is used to date the sample! The same problem applies to thorium samples.



(2) Leaching is another problem. Part of the uranium and its daughter products could previously have leached out. This would drastically affect the dating of the sample. Lead, in particular, can be leached out by weak acid solutions.

"Most igneous rocks also contain uranium in a form that is readily soluble in weak acids. Hurley (1950) found that as much as 90 percent of the total radioactive elements of some granites could be removed by leaching the granulated rock with weak acid."— *M.R. Klepper and *D.G. Wyant, "Notes on the Geology of Uranium," in U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1046-F, 1957, p. 93.
"Countless [radioactive dating] determinations have been made by this method, but it was found that the premises on which the method rests are not valid for most uranium minerals. There is definite evidence of selective uranium leaching by acid waters, and it is now known that most radioactive minerals contained some lead when they were formed.''—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Geology (1954), p. 282.



​

Faul's last sentence alone is enough to destroy the usefulness of uranium and thorium in providing us with accurate clocks for dating.



(3)Then there is the problem of inaccurate lead ratio comparisons. Correlations of various kinds of lead (lead 206, 207, etc.) in the specimen is done to improve dating accuracy. But errors can and do occur here also. The following statement briefly summarizes the five types of dating errors that can result when lead ratios are compared:

"Actually, the method [of comparing lead isotopes to make specimen dating more accurate) is subject to several errors. [ 1 ] Loss of radon 222 raises the lead/lead ratio and the calculated age. [2] A rather large error may be introduced by the uncertainty in the composition of the original lead. This error may exceed the measured value when dealing with younger uranium minerals containing even small amounts of original lead, as clearly recognized by Holmes when the method was first proposed. [3) Presence of old radiogenic lead (formed in a prior site of the parent uranium) may cause great error. (4) Instrumental errors in mass spectrometry may yield consistently high apparent proportions of lead 204 and lead 207. (5) Redistribution of elements by renewed hydrothermal activity may be a serious source of error in all lead methods."—*Henry Faul, Nuclear Energy (1954), p. 295.



​

This point of maturity or "apparent age" at the beginning answers many questions about radioactive elements and radiodating. THE CHART ABOVE shows the lengthy half-lives of the longest long-period radioactive isotopes. Yet, in each case, a variety of assumptions must be made in order to vindicate such long ages. One of these is the assumption that, originally, there were only radioisotopes at the top of each chain, and no daughter products existed.
Yet, at the Creation, each of those substances could have been made—already partly changed into its daughter products (already partly down its radioactive chain. "Daughter products" of those chains could have been made in the beginning, in addition to their "parents," the radioactive isotopes at the top of each chain.
The words "complete" and "variety" would have marked the world at the Creation, when everything was first made. There were not a few of the radioisotopes (uranium and thorium), but all of them (radium, polonium, and the other "daughter products"). It was a complete work and all nature was filled with variety of every sort.
We find obvious evidence of this today in the radioactive substances. Instead of all of the long half-life substances being the same age, they indicate a variety of ages. Yet, if the earth came into existence from a molten mass at some time in the past, that would not be true. Or, if all originated by a Creation in which everything, animate and inanimate, began in total youth, that would not be true.
When the world was Created, God did not simply scatter pine seeds, acorns, and plant spores on the ground, amid eggs and placentas; He made everything apparently already somewhat aged. The same would have occurred with the radioisotopes.



The third reason, cited above, deserves special mention: That contaminating lead in a specimen which skews dating results, is lead that did not originate with inherent radioactive decay of uranium or thorium in the specimen. It may have always been present or it may have been introduced.

"Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Similar difficulties prevail with pitchblende veins. Here again widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot. "—*Henry Faul, Ages of the Rocks, Planets, and Stars (1966), p. 61.



​

When such contaminating lead is thought to be in a specimen, the presence of a "non-radiogenic lead" (lead 204, or "common lead"—lead which is not a daughter product of any radioactive decay chain) is assumed. But many or most such minerals might equally well contain some "radiogenic lead" (lead still emitting radiation) from some other source. This radiation would itself contaminate the test results and would result in a much higher date reading for the mineral specimen. Radiogenic lead can contaminate any uranium mineral to an unknown amount, making accurate dating impossible.

"In view of the evidence for extensive mixing, it wouldseem contrary to the facts to postulate differing frozen [never-changing] lead-uranium ratios that have existed for billions of years. The requirements of the assumptions in the ore-lead method are so extreme it is unlikely that it should give a correct age."—*C. Patterson, *G. Tilton, and *M. Inghram, "Age of the Earth," in Science, January 21, 1955, p. 74.



​

*Sidney P. Clementson, a British engineer, carefully studied a wide variety of known modern volcanic rocks. All were spewed out of volcanoes within the past 200-300 years. Upon cooling, any uranium in them would have their clocks reset to zero, because of dramatic leaching factors during eruption and lava flow. He compared his rocks, which were only 200-300 years old, with Soviet uranium dating tests of the same volcanic rocks,—and found that in every instance, the uranium-lead dated ages were vastly older than the TRUE ages of the rocks! Depending on which methods, samples, and corrections were used on those Russian volcanic rocks, the radiodating methods gave ages from 50 million to 14.6 billion years! A majority of the age differences were in the billions of years. (See "Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)



Thus, we have here astounding evidence of the marvelous unreliability of radiodating techniques. Rock known to be less than 300 years old is variously dated between 50 million and 14.5 billion years of age! That is a 14-billion year error in dating! Yet such radiodating techniques continue to be used in order to prove long ages of earth's existence. A chimpanzee typing numbers at random could do as well.

"And what essentially is this actual time-scale? On what criteria does it rest? When all is winnowed out and the grain reclaimed from the chaff, it is certain that the grain in the product is mainly the paleontologic record [strata dating based onindex fossil theories] and highly likely that the physical record [radioactive dating] is the chaff."—"E M. Spieker, "Mountain-Building Chronology and the Nature of the Geologic Time Scale," in Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, August 1956, p. 1806.



​

In the above quotation, Spieker suggests that radiodating is worthless and only fossil strata dating theories are correct. In the chapter on Fossils, we shall find that stratigraphic dating (dating by sedimentary strata) is equally useless!
Sample datings from a single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine yielded an error spread of 700 million years. Swedish kolm from one location in Scandinavia was dated by uranium dating from between 380 million years to 800 million years. Both of these items are discussed in Implications of Evolution, by *G.A. Kerkut (pp. 139-140).
An excellent collection of scientific statements dealing with the dating problems caused by lead variations in rocks of various types, is to be found in *William Corliss, Anomalies in Geology, pp. 118-124.
(4) Yet a fourth problem concerns that of neutron capture. *Melvin Cooke suggests that the radiogenic lead isotope 207 (normally thought to have been formed only by the decay of uranium 235) could actually have been formed from lead 206, simply by having captured free neutrons from neighboring rock. In the same manner, lead 208 (normally theorized as formed only by thorium 232 decay) could have been formed by the capture of free neutrons from lead 207. Cooke checked out this possibility by extensive investigation and came up with a sizable quantity of data indicating that practically all radiogenic lead in the earth's crust could have been produced in this way, instead of by uranium or thorium decay! This point alone totally invalidates uranium and thorium dating methods!



(5) A fifth problem deals with the origin of the rocks containing these radioactive minerals. According to evolutionary theory, the earth was originally molten. But, if true, that would produce a wild variation in clock settings in radioactive materials.

"Why do the radioactive ages of lava beds laid down within a few weeks of each other differ by millions of years?"—Glenn R. Morton, "Electromagnetics and the Appearance of Age, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 229.



​

According to evolutionary theory, all the rocks were originally molten!

"The uranium and other radioactive minerals whose decay products are measured are usually found in igneous [volcanic) rocks. Therefore they arrived at their present locations under conditions of immense heat."—Eric A. Knappett, Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1981, p. 235.



​

It is a well-known fact by nuclear researchers that intense heat damages radiodating clock settings, yet the public is solemnly presented with dates of rocks indicating long ages of time, when in fact, the evolutionary theory of the origin of rocks would render those dates totally useless.



For additional information see the appendix topic, "3 Uranium Dating, " at the end of this chapter.

.​

Also just a reminder that I am waiting for the actual research that shows that many mutations are harmless (neither advantageous or harmful) I have seen the statements and research on test subjects but where is the proof it is prevelant in all species???

 

[nolidad]

And still some more for you:


3-4-LEAD 210 AND HELIUM DATING—Two other methods of dating uranium and thorium specimens should be mentioned.
First, there is uranium-lead 210 dating. Lead 210 is frequently used to date uranium.
Second is the uranium-helium method. Helium produced by uranium decay is also used for the same dating purpose.
But the lead 210 method is subject to the very same entry or leaching problems mentioned above, and helium leakage is so notorious as to render it unfit for dating purposes.
Uranium and thorium are only rarely found in fossil-bearing rocks, so recent attention has been given to rubidium dating and two types of potassium dating, all of which are radioactive isotopes of alkali metals, and are found in fossil rocks.
For additional information see the appendix topic, "4 - Thorium Dating," at the end of this chapter.
5-RUBIDIUM-STRONTIUM DATING—Rubidium 87 gradually decays into strontium 87. All aside from leaching and other contamination, the experts have so far been unable to agree on length of rubidium half life. *Abrams compiled a list of rubidium half lives suggested by various experts. The rubidium half life estimates varied between 48 and 120 billion years! That is a variation spread of 72 billion years: a number so inconceivably large as to render Rb-Sr dating worthless.
In addition, only a very small amount of strontium results from the decay, and much of it may be non-radiogenic, that is, not caused by the decay process. One geologist, *J.C. Engels, after careful researching into this problem, estimated that "radiogenic Sr-87 [decayed from Rb-87] would be only about 5 percent of all Sr-87 present" in the Rb-87 to Sr-87 specimens analyzed! The problem is that strontium 87 is easily leached from one mineral to another, thus producing highly contaminated dating test results.
Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years.For additional information see quotation supplement, "5 - Rubidium-Strontium Dating," at the end of this chapter.

6-POTASSIUM-ARGON DATING—Radioactive potassium decays into calcium and argon gas. Great hopes were initially pinned on this, for potassium occurs widely in fossil-bearing strata. But equally great disappointment resulted when, first, because of such wide dating variations the scientists could not agree on potassium half life, and then, second, when they discovered that the rare gas, argon, quickly left the mineral and escaped into other rocks and into the atmosphere.​

"The two principle problems have been the uncertainties in the radioactive decay constants of potassium and in the inability of minerals to retain the argon produced by this decay."—*G. W. Wetherill, "Radioactivity of Potassium and Geologic Time, " in Science, September 20, 1957, p. 545.

​

Since it is a gas, argon 40 can easily migrate in and out of potassium rocks.

"Processes of rock alteration may render a volcanic rock useless for potassium-argon dating . . We have analyzed several devitrified glasses of known age, and all have yielded ages that are too young. Some gave virtually zero ages, although the geologic evidence suggested that devitrification took place shortly after the formation of a deposit."—VF. Evemden, et. al., " KJAA Dates and the Cenozoic Mammalian Chronology of North America, "in American Journal of Science, February 1964, p 154.

​

Not only is argon an unstable gas, but potassium itself can easily be leached out of the rock.

"As much as 80 percent of the potassium in a small sample of an iron meteorite can be removed by distilled water in 4.5 hours."—*L.A. Rancitelli and D.E. Fisher, "Potassium-Argon Ages of Iron Meteorites," in Planetary Science Abstracts, 48th Annual Meeting of the American Geophysical Union (1967), p. 167.

​

Rainwater is distilled water. In heavy downpours, rainwater that is still fairly pure can occasionally trickle down into deeper rock areas, transferring potassium from one location to another.
Another problem is that potassium-argon dating must be calculated by uranium-lead dating methods! This greatly adds to the problem, for we have already seen that uranium dating is itself unreliable! This is something like the blind leading the blind.
In view of such information, it is a seemingly unbelievable—but true—fact that K/A (potassium-argon) dating is at the present time a key dating method used in developing and verifying advanced evolutionary theories. (See the chapter, Paleomagnetic Dating.) The long ages applied to the major new theory of "sea floor spreading" is based entirely on potassium-argon dates in basalts (lava) taken from the ocean bottom.
Submerged volcanic rocks, produced by lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei in the years 1800-1801, were dated using potassium-argon. The lava forming those rocks is clearly known to be less than 200 years old, yet the potassium-argon dating of the rocks yielded great ages, ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years! (See *Science, October 11, 1968; *Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968).
A group of volcanic rocks from Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean produced K/Ar (potassium-argon) ages ranging from 100,000 to 2 million years. These same rocks were then tested by the uranium 238/lead 206 method, and the age indications varied from 3.2 to 4.4. billion years. The factor of discordance between "ages" ranged as high as 1 to 14,000 in some samples.
Potassium is found in most igneous (lava) and some sedimentary (fossil-bearing) rocks. In spite of its notorious inaccuracy, to this day potassium-argon dating continues to be the most common method of radioactive dating of fossil-bearing rock strata. This is because it yields long ages for the rocks, and occasionally a potassium-argon test result will agree with the hundred-year-old theory of dating strata by index fossils. When doing rock strata testing with K/Ar, only those rare test results that agree with the 100-year-old strata dating theory are widely mentioned; conflicting test results are set aside or discarded.

Here are "professional" instructions given to geologists, telling them to do just that, when running radioactive mineral tests:

"The most reasonable age [from among the many conflicting "dates" offered] can be selected only after careful consideration of independent geochronologic data as well as field, stratigraphic and paleontologic evidence, and the petrographic and paragenetic relations. "— *LR. Stieff, *T.W Stern and *R.N. Eichler, "Algebraic and Graphic Methods for Evaluating Discordant Lead-Isotope Ages," in U.S. Geological Survey Professional Papers, No. 414-E (1963).

​

The above quotation tells us this: Only those radioactive dates are to be retained, which agree with the 19th century geologic column dating theories. Here is the meaning of the big words used in that quotation: Geochronology refers to rock dating; stratigraphy is the study of rock strata; paleontology, the study of fossils; petrography, the study of ancient pictures and markings; and parageny, the study of fossils as they might relate to one another.
It is highly significant that when potassium argon dating methods have been applied to Cambrian rocks, they produced test result age dates with a variation spread of 200 million years!
For additional information see quotation supplement, "6 -Potassium-Argon Dating," at the end of this chapter.
7-POTASSIUM-CALCIUM DATING—If possible, the situation is even worse for dating with this method. Radioactive potassium decays to both argon and calcium (calcium 40). But the problem here is that researchers cannot distinguish between calcium 40 and other calciums because the two are so commonly and thoroughly intermixed. The argon is of little help, since it so rapidly leaches out.

 

[KerrMetric]

I just ask people to look at the dates of the attached references in that rubbish above. Almost all of them are 5 decades old.

Who thinks no work on dating has been performed since say modern computers have existed?

 

[nolidad]

Last one I promise:

Thus we find that there are problems with ALL radioactive dating methods!

"Now there are four different ways we can compute the age of the mineral; namely, from (1) the ratio of lead 206 to uranium 238, (2) the ratio of lead 207 to uranium 235, (3) the ratio of lead 206 to lead 207, and (4) the ratio of helium to uranium.
"Ideally, all four of these ages should agree, and no estimate can be considered trustworthy unless at least two independent methods agree. But, unfortunately, complicating factors often produce discrepancies in evaluating a given sample."
—*Harrison Brown, "The Age of the Solar System," in Scientific American, April 1957, p. 82.
​

(Another factor which by itself would account for the apparently long ages indicated by radiodating, is the decay of the speed of light. This point is dealt with near the end of this chapter.)
EMERY'S RESEARCH—In order for a radioactive clock to be usable, it has to run without variation. But *G.T. Emery has done careful research on radiohalos (pleochroic halos) and found that they do not show constant decay rates. When the long half-life radiohalos (made by uranium, thorium, etc.) are examined, the time spans involved show inaccuracies in the decay rates.
This research by Emery indicates that radiodating based on uranium and thorium is simply not reliable for dating purposes (see *G.T. Emery, "Perturbations of Nuclear Decay Rates," in American Review of Nuclear Science, vol. 22, 1977).
(Such inconsistencies would prove no problem for the extremely short half-life radiohalos produced by polonium 210, 214, and 218. As described in chapter 5, Origin of the Earth, these rock halos, researched by R.V. Gentry, show that the major foundation rock of the world—granite was produced in less then three minutes time. Since the polonium half-lives are so extremely short already, variations would not matter. Uranium and thorium half lives are in the billions of years, compared with a split second, a half-hour, or less than half-a-year for polonium. Because of those very short half lives, polonium dating of rocks remains highly accurate for our purposes in knowing that only a brief span of time could elapse before the granite was solid.)
JUST ONE CATASTROPHE—As Jeaneman explains so well<B>, just one major catastrophe such as a worldwide Flood—would have ruined the usefulness of our radiodating clocks:

</B>"The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such 'confirmation' 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. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic [the dinosaur age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man." —*Fredreck B. Jeaneman, "Secular Catastrophism," in Industrial Research and Development, June 1982, p. 21.
​

Why would a single world-wide catastrophe reset all the atomic clocks? First, there would be massive contamination problems, as fluids, chemicals, and radioactive substances flowed or were carried from one place to another. Second, there would be major radioactive rate-changing activities (atmospheric, radiative, and magnetic changes) would tend to reset the clocks directly. Third, there would be a major shifting and redistribution of rock pressure occurring above radiogenic rocks would reset their clocks. Fourth, there would be reversals of earth's magnetic core, which were caused by the shockwave vibrations through that fluid core from what was happening closer to the surface (volcanoes, earthquakes, gigantic geysers, sea-floor sinking, and massive mountain building—see chapter 19, Effects of the Flood).

​

Now read this:
​

FIVE WAYS TO CHANGE THE RATES—Careful laboratory tests by * H.C. Dudley revealed that external influences can very definitely affect decay rates. He CHANGED (1) the decay rates of 14 different radioisotopes by means of pressure, temperature, electric and magnetic fields, stress in monomolecular layers, etc. The implications of this are momentous, even astounding! (see *H.C. Dudley, "Radioactivity Re-Examined," In Chemical and Engineering News, April 7, 1975, p. 2.) We know that the sedimentary rock strata were laid down under massive pressure. This involved great stress. (See chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, for more on both of these points.) Dramatic temperature changes occurred shortly after the strata were laid down (chapter 19, Effects of the Flood), and Earth's iron core was disturbed to such an extent, that magnetic reversals occurred at the poles (chapter 26, paleomagnetism). Yet Dudley showed that each of these forces would have dramatically affected the clocks within radioactive rocks.
Immense forces were at work, during and just after the Flood, that could and did affect the constancy of radioactive half-lives—which, in turn, are the only basis for radiodating methods!
The result is inaccurate dating results which are not reliable, and which cannot be reset—since their earlier settings are not now known.
*Time magazine (June 19, 1964) reported an intriguing item which was overlooked by much of the scientific community. Although scientists generally consider that no known force can change the rate of atomic disintegration of radioactive elements,—researchers at Westinghouse laboratories have actually done it. How did they do it? simply by placing inactive "dead" iron next to radioactive iron. The result was that the disintegration rate was altered!
Radioactive iron will give off particles for a time and then lapse into an inactive state. When the researchers placed radioactive iron next to inactive iron, the inactive iron gradually became active. In this way the apparent age of the radioactive iron was changed by about 3 percent, while the clock of the previously inactive iron was returned to its original radioactive mass. Its clock was set back to zero!
If so much variation can be accomplished in small lab samples, think what has been taking place out in the field. All that is required is for radioactive lead solutions to flow by and coat inactive lead.
Magnetic rocks—or changes in earth's magnetic core—can work great changes also:

"The latest report of a changing nuclear decay rate involves cobalt-60. The fascinating part is that the experiment was done in an undergraduate science lab! The environment of the Co-60 nuclei was altered by placing the source within the poles of a permanent magnet (103 gauss). The author repeatedly found that the magnet increased the count rate by 2 percent. This is certainly a macroscopic [large] change in view of the 5.24 year half-life of Co-60 . . It is increasingly clear that nuclear half-lives, and thus radiometric dates, are variables which depend on the nuclear surroundings."—Donald B. Deyoung, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1979, p. 142.


NOW I KNOW THAT MANY OF THESE QOUTES ARE QUITE OLD. IF YOU WISH MORE UP TO DATE QOUTES WITH NEW VERIFICATION OF THESE FACTS--YOU NEED TO BUY THE TWO BOOKS.
​

 

[KerrMetric]

What we have witnessed here is the argumentum ad spamum. Post 5000 words in small print and then claim "Aha - see the evilutionists cannot answer".

The problem is it isn't because it is meaningful but because no one on a darn message board has time to rebut pages of nonsense (and seemingly 50 year old nonsense at that.)

And even if someone without a life takes the time the poster of the said spam will just shift topic to evolution or cosmology with 5000 more words of rubbish.

For Gods sake pick a point and post a sentence or two about it - not the Kent Hovind trademarked throwing faeces in the air hoping some will stick method.

 

[KerrMetric]

"The latest report of a changing nuclear decay rate involves cobalt-60. The fascinating part is that the experiment was done in an undergraduate science lab! The environment of the Co-60 nuclei was altered by placing the source within the poles of a permanent magnet (103 gauss). The author repeatedly found that the magnet increased the count rate by 2 percent. This is certainly a macroscopic [large] change in view of the 5.24 year half-life of Co-60 . . It is increasingly clear that nuclear half-lives, and thus radiometric dates, are variables which depend on the nuclear surroundings."&#8212;Donald B. Deyoung, news note in Creation Research Society Quarterly, September 1979, p. 142.

And this is why you don't get science from Creationist magazines and one of their chief falsehood merchants Don DeYoung.

Notice it says count rate changed and not half life. Do you know why?

Because Cobalt-60 is a beta decay isotope. It emits electrons. When electrons are placed in a magnetic field they are deflected. In this so called experiment all we have is the geiger counter not receiving all the electrons because some of them are deflected away.

Nuclear decay rates have been subjected to far greater magnetic fields than this (as well as other extreme conditions) and except in some very specific situations never change.

Don DeYoung knows this unless he is truly incompetent - I can only conclude he is lying.

 

[KEMMER]

And this is why you don't get science from Creationist magazines and one of their chief falsehood merchants Don DeYoung.

Notice it says count rate changed and not half life. Do you know why?

Because Cobalt-60 is a beta decay isotope. It emits electrons. When electrons are placed in a magnetic field they are deflected. In this so called experiment all we have is the geiger counter not receiving all the electrons because some of them are deflected away.

Nuclear decay rates have been subjected to far greater magnetic fields than this (as well as other extreme conditions) and except in some very specific situations never change.

Don DeYoung knows this unless he is truly incompetent - I can only conclude he is lying.

I MEAN HONESTLY, WOULD YOU EVER SEE JESUS OR PAUL CARING AABOUT SUCH USELESS YAMMERING?

 

[KerrMetric]

I MEAN HONESTLY, WOULD YOU EVER SEE JESUS OR PAUL CARING AABOUT SUCH USELESS YAMMERING?

Perhaps not - but it seems some supposed followers of Christ are willing to lie in his name. That ticks me of.