“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] )