Radiometric Dating methods used in trying to justify billions of years of evolution are notoriously unreliable, inconsistent, and provide dramatically flawed results when the dates are actually known. These methods are based on unprovable and in some cases flawed assumptions. They are not the best evidence for the age dating.
Evolution theory decrees that our universe and solar system must be billions of years old. Without the idea of billions of years there is no basis for evolution theory. It is do or die.
Yet, evolution theory leaves behind it a trail of unanswered questions.
- Without God what is the source of original matter, energy and molecular structure?
- How does an explosion create such finite order that even the smallest variation would make the universe non-viable?
- How does a big bang explosion create such diversity in the universe where no two galaxies, stars and planets appear the same? It doesn’t!
- In evolutionary terms, why is there no valid explanation for creation of the first living cell?
- Without God where does beauty and design come from?
- How is it possible, in evolutionary terms, that the butterfly or the moth require only days to transform from a caterpillar into a completely different species?
- If evolution is true why do we not find a world filled with undisputed intermediate fossils?
- If man evolved from primates, then why are there 61 varieties of primates in a total population of 1.6 million, while the population of humans is 7.3 billion with no varieties except skin pigment?
Evolution theory asks that you ignore these unanswered age related questions and accept their hypothesis as reality. The problem is that their belief is not grounded in observable science as they would have you believe. Rather, it is based on their belief that God is not necessary in explaining origins and the world around them.
The Christian’s biblical view offers answers to otherwise unanswerable questions and it makes sense.
What’s at Stake?
- Because these methods appear to be “scientific” many people assume they are trustworthy, and are led to false conclusions.
- Other important evidence is often overlooked or undervalued because of the undeserved value placed in Radiometric Dating.
- Radiometric Dating methods can be “tailored” to provide desired results and are therefore subject to misinterpretation.
Some Reasons to Question Evolutionary Age Dating Methods
- Radiocarbon Dating (Carbon 14) is based on unprovable and flawed assumptions. Even if all the assumptions were correct it could only measure up to 30,000 years based on a recent scientific review by the RATE Group of C14 founder, Dr. Willard Libby’s, work.
- Radioisotope Dating is notoriously unreliable when comparing rocks of known ages. Further, radioisotope dating is limited to igneous (once molten) and metamorphic (transformed, usually by natural processes) rocks.
- Many methods used for assessing the Age of the Earth demonstrate that it cannot be billions of years old.
- Lava flow with trees in them. Trees dated at 44,000 years, while lava around it was dated at 45 million years old.
- Fossilized woods that evolutionists estimate to be more than 200-million-years old still contain C-14.
- Population statistics are consistent with biblical age, not millions of years.
Assumptions for Radiocarbon Dating
Factors affecting the amount of carbon in the atmosphere:
- Variations in the cosmic ray penetration of the earth’s atmosphere.
- Strength of the earth’s magnetic field. For example, our magnetic field is decaying.
- Amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.
- Genesis Flood – buried much carbon from living organisms to form coal and oil. If the Genesis Flood is historically accurate, then the buried carbon today is far greater than the total carbon currently in the biosphere. Scientists estimate CO2 levels were 15 times the current levels when the earth was first formed.
- The degree of accuracy required in measuring 1 atom in 1 trillion should not go unnoticed. A ratio of just 2 or 3 atoms in a trillion would put things in a totally different perspective.
Assumptions for Radioisotope Dating
- The starting amount of daughter element is assumed to be zero.
- All the daughter element present in the tested rock is assumed to be from radioactive decay.
- Samples assumed to have been in a closed environment with no other forces acting upon it.
- The decay rate is assumed to have always been constant.
- Circular Reasoning – Geological Column – Ages established by using circular reasoning. Overzealous faith in the current dating methods result in circular reasoning. Effectively this suggests that because evolutionists think they know the age of the rocks, when they find fossils in those rocks they claim to know the age of the fossils. The flaw is not only in the circular reasoning, but also in the assumptions used in age dating methods.
- Proof by Assertion — Evolutionists suggest that most scientists support its theory of origins, so it is correct. The majority of scientists have been wrong many times in history. Spontaneous generation of life was believed by most scientists before Louis Pasteur proved the belief wrong.
- Evolutionary scientists often refer to lack of “peer reviewed” documentation as justification for their position. Yet, what they really mean by “peer reviewed” is a creation supporting document reviewed and agreed to by evolutionists. Realistically it is unlikely that evolutionary scientists would give a creationist position paper their approval.
- No amount of time justifies evolution theory because the process itself is flawed. The current evidence shows that we are devolving not evolving. The process simply doesn’t stand up to empirical scientific research.
Radiometric methods should always be considered in the light of other reliable evidence. Before trusting radiometric dating methods, it is important to understand how they work, their built in assumptions, their limitations, and their proven inconsistencies. Radiometric Dating methods are too often held out as “proof” of the age of the earth. In fact, they prove nothing except that the “scientific” study of the age of the earth is blurred by assumptions and remains untestable in the empirical world of science.