SloppyNoodle.com
nav_line
home
nav_line
issues
nav_line
emerse
nav_line
Care
nav_line
about
nav_line

 

SloppyNoodle.com Updates

From my heart to yours Devotion

Darlene Zschech Inspiration



  “Why I am Not an Evolutionist …”

              The Science Lecture Class Handout

 By Andy Carmichael © 2003

Creation School Online with Andy Carmichael is hosted

at the website www.SloppyNoodle.com/ev.html

                 Andy_Ally@hotmail.com

6.      Dating methods

The only supposed indicators of vast age in the universe are :

1.       Starlight from very distant galaxies and quasars. Evolutionists claim these galaxies and quasars are up to 10 billion light years distance away from us, so they claim that 10 billion years of time must have passed for the starlight to be reaching us today.

2.       Some radioactive dating “ages” of rocks from the earth and the moon. Evolutionists claim these radioactive dating methods give them ages of up to 10 billion years.

6.1  Distant starlight in a young universe :

The evolutionist’s first supposed indicator of vast age is this : if the solar system and the universe are around 6,000 years old, how can we see stars in galaxies and quasars that are said to be at a distance of more than 6,000 light years from the earth ? If the universe is 6,000 years old as the Bible clearly states, then the starlight that we see today has had no more than 6,000 years to cross the universe to reach the earth. Evolutionists claim that stars visible to us today are supposedly so far away from us it would have taken their starlight 10 billion years to cross the universe to reach the earth. So the universe, they claim, must be at least 10 billion years old or we would not be able to see these stars. A combination of the following five scientific explanations is most likely the answer to how we can see very distant starlight in a very young universe :

(a)    How are star distances estimated and how far away actually are the furthest stars ? :

On what scientific or mathematical basis do evolutionists claim that certain galaxies and quasars are distances of up to “10 billion light years away” from the earth ? It is a proven fact of astronomy that distances in space beyond 300 current light years cannot be scientifically measured, estimated or even known. The idea that quasars and some galaxies are distances of up to 10 billion light years away from us is only an evolutionist assumption based on the flawed evolutionist interpretation of the redshift of starlight and not a fact of astronomy or science. But redshift of starlight is not an indicator of distance, speed or recessional velocity (see astronomer Halton Arp’s book Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies).

Further, since light currently travels a distance of 9.46 trillion kilometres through space in one year, this would still give an immensely vast diameter of the universe of 114 million billion kilometres (i.e. 2 x 9.46 trillion km x 6,000 years) even if the other four scientific explanations are ignored. The universe is probably smaller in diameter than is popularly believed. It is unknown (and scientifically unknowable) whether stars, galaxies and quasars are all located within a distance of 6,000 current light years from the earth.

(b)   Riemannian or curved space :

Space could be curved allowing distant starlight to reach us quickly by taking a “short-cut” through space on a curved path. In other words, space may be curved or Riemannian instead of being straight-line or Euclidean. Evolutionist Albert Einstein used this theoretical mathematical concept of Riemannian or curved space in his relativity theories.

(c)    An instantly mature creation :

The entire universe was certainly and very logically created as partly or fully mature and therefore was created with some appearance of age. However, this fact does not by itself explain how we can see supernova explosions that are at a supposed distance of more than 6,000 current light-years from the earth. The question to be asked is how does an evolutionist scientifically know a supernova’s distance from the earth ? As metioned above, it is scientifically impossible to estimate the distance of any object in space that is more than 300 light years away from the earth.

(d)   The speed of light has decreased enormously over the past 6,000 years :

Observations in astronomy over the past 325 years have shown a definite measured statistical decrease in the speed of light. Contrary to popular false belief, there is no scientific law that requires the speed of light to be constant. Even Einstein did not claim that the speed of light itself is constant but that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the light source, or that the speed of light is constant with regard to all observers. And evolutionists themselves are now claiming that the speed of light was billions of times faster at their “time zero” to try to resuscitate their big bang theory. The observed historic decrease in the speed of light has been graphed mathematically and forms a logarithmic curve. Extrapolating this mathematical logarithmic curve back 6,000 years results in an almost infinite speed of light during the creation week 6,000 years ago. An initial almost infinite speed of light would easily allow all starlight, even in an almost infinitely large universe, to reach us within 6,000 years. If the speed of light has decreased substantially, this would make all radiometric dating methods produce artificially old billion-year “dates” for objects that are in reality only no more than a few thousand years old.

(e)   A rapid initial stretching out of space itself :

The Bible indicates at least twelve different times that God rapidly stretched out or spread out the heavens, which probably refers to the very fabric of space itself, most likely during the creation week of 6,000 years ago. This would also account for the observed redshift of most starlight. The question is therefore not how far away are the very distant stars, but how close to us were they when their starlight that we currently see first started out on its journey to us.

6.2    Radiometric dating methods :

No radioactive dating method has ever scientifically proved that the earth or the moon are more than 6,000 years old. Radiometric years are not the same as calendar years and all radiometric “dates” are entirely dependent on the assumptions used. If, despite the existence of the global fossil record that could have been produced only by a global flood, you merely assume that no global flood happened, you will get billion-year radiometric “dates” as a result. If you conclude from the scientific evidence that a global flood did happen, you will get only thousand-year radiometric “dates” as a result. Radiometric “dates” are only as good as your assumptions. They do not constitute scientific evidence for the universe being supposedly billions of years old.

(a)   Carbon dating

Carbon-dating is not an absolute dating method. It can only “date” living or once-living things (plant, animal and people remains) and cannot date rocks. Evolutionists never use method to date fossils or “dinosaurs”. But a C-14 “date” is only an inference obtained by comparing the ratio of two types of carbon atom left in organic remains. The “dates” depend entirely on the assumptions used (for example, the evolutionist assumption that there never was a global Flood). This dating method is usable only to an absolute maximum of 50,000 hypothetical past years and is also usable only back to the last global catastrophe (i.e. the global Genesis Flood of 2,348 BC). The method is accurate only to about 100 BC.

The method’s long-age “dates” rely critically on unknown and unknowable assumptions. “Garbage In, Garbage Out” – evolutionist assumptions will obviously give very old (evolutionist) “dates”. Biblical assumptions will give very young “dates” for the same object being dated. And carbon-dating “years” are not the same as real years. All evolutionist carbon-dating “ages” unscientifically assume that : no global Flood (or any other worldwide catastrophe); speed of light always remained constant; intensity of Earth’s magnetic field not changed for past 20,000 years; only small variations in ocean depths for time span being dated; were only small ocean temperature variations during time span; and C-14 decay rate has not varied much during time span.

Evolutionists wrongly carbon-dated fresh-water snails living in Artesian springs in Nevada as being “27,000 years old”; and they “carbon-dated” seals clubbed in the Antarctic a few weeks before as having died “1,300 years ago” :

“The Carbon-14 contents of the shells of the snail of Melanoides tuberculatus living today in artesian springs in southern Nevada indicate an apparent age of 27,000 years.”

(Dr. Alan C. Riggs, formerly of the US Geological Survey, 1984 [12] )

“… when the blood of a seal freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by Carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago.”

(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [13] )

“Radiocarbon analysis of specimens obtained from mummified seals in southern Victoria Land has yielded ages ranging from 615 to 4,600 years. However, antarctic sea water has significantly lower carbon-14 activity than that accepted as the world standard. Therefore, radiocarbon dating of marine organisms yields apparent ages that are older than true ages, but by an unknown and possibly variable amount. Therefore, the several radiocarbon ages determined for the mummified seal carcasses cannot be accepted as correct.”

(Wakefield Dort Jr, Department of Geology, University of Kansas, 1971 [14] )

(b) Other radiometric dating methods : uranium-lead, thorium-lead, potassium-argon and rubidium-strontium dating

Radiometric dating methods don’t actually “date” anything and so they cannot give absolute dates of millions of years. A radiometric “date” is only an inference obtained by comparing the ratio of two types of atom left in a sample (parent and daughter isotopes). Evolutionists use unscientific assumptions of constant decay rates and no global catastrophes. However, leaching of parent and/or daughter elements into and out of a rock sample is very easy and is very common, especially if there was ever ground water flowing in that region.

All of these methods are accurate only back to the last global catastrophe (i.e. the global Flood of 2,348 BC) as global catastrophes reset all the radiometric / atomic “clocks” by invalidating the evolutionist’s main dating assumption that there have never been any global catastrophes. The assumptions are similar to the assumptions used in carbon dating.

These radiometric dating methods also have many anomalies : volcanic lava flows in the 1800s from Hawaii were “dated” by the Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) method as having flowed 3 billion years ago. Lava flows in 1954 from Mt Ngauruahoe in New Zealand were “dated” by the K-Ar method as having flowed 250,000 to 3 million years ago. Radiometric dating methods are not used to date fossils or “dinosaurs” :

“[Radiometric dating] is an exceedingly crude instrument with which to measure our strata and I can think of no occasion where it has been put to an immediate practical use. Apart from very ‘modern’ examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.”

(Dr Derek Ager, evolutionist, geologist, Head of the Geology Department of the University College of Swansea and former president of the British Geological Association, 1983 [15] )

“As yet there is no radiometric method (that is, one based on radioactivity) for the direct absolute dating of dinosaurs.”

(Dr Alan Charig, evolutionist, palaeontologist and Head of the Palaeontological Laboratory at the British Natural History Museum, 1979 [16] )

“It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological ‘clock’. The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologists and evolutionists …”

(Dr. William Stansfield, Instructor of Biology, California Polytechnic State University, 1977 [17] )

“The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay 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 radiodecay 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 to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.”

(Frederic Jeuneman, “Secular Catastrophism”, 1982 [18] )

·         Radiometric dating methods are not used to assign dates to rocks in rock strata – they are used only to try to “verify” the unscientific 19th century evolutionist “index fossil dates” :

“Index fossils” are types of fossil (such as ammonites and coelacanths) that 19th century European evolutionists of the Victorian era claimed lived and died out many millions of years ago. The supposed age of “index fossils” is based on how long these 19th century evolutionists believed one kind of animal would take (somehow) to “evolve” into a different kind of animal. For example, if they believed it would take 200 million years for an ammonite (somehow) to turn gradually into say a dog, then all rocks containing fossil ammonites (the “index fossil”) would be given an “age” 200 million years older than rocks containing fossils of dogs :

“… the geological column and approximate ages of all the fossil-bearing strata were all worked out long before anyone ever heard or thought about radioactive dating … There are so many sources of possible error or misinterpretation in radiometric dating that most such dates are discarded and never used at all, notably whenever they disagree with the previously agreed-on [index fossil] dates.”

(Dr Henry Morris, creationist scientist and hydraulicist, PhD in hydrology, geology and mathematics, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American Society of Civil Engineers, former Professor of Hydraulic Engineering at Virginia Polytechnic Institute, 1974 [19] )

And when it comes to dating any individual rock today, the resulting “date” is forced to conform to predetermined evolutionist “dates” based on these imaginary 19th century index-fossil “dates”. Any radiometric dates that show a supposedly “old” rock to be young are rejected for no other reason :

“Few people realize that the index fossil dating system, despite its poor assumptions and many problems, is actually the primary dating tool for geologic time. … In other words, radiometric dating methods are actually fit into the geological column, which was set up by [index] fossil dating over 100 years ago.”

(Michael Oard, meteorologist and creationist scientist, 1984 [20] )

Advertisment Header




Mercy Ministries

Mercy Ministries Mercy Ministries Australia Mercy Ministries USA Mercy Ministries UK Mercy Ministries Canada

PluggedIn

 

 

copyright