|
Introduction
to the Mathematics of Evolution Chapter
8 Radiometric
Dating " Icons of Evolution - Science or
Myth?
Jonathan Wells, page 223 Introduction Dating of
bones, fossils, rocks and other items is a very
controversial issue. To
understand just how controversial it is, the same fossil might be dated by the
evolutionists to be hundreds of
millions of years old; yet the same fossil might be dated by creation
scientists as being no more than 12
thousand years old. Radiometric
dating is the process by which bones or fossils are "dated," meaning
a date is chosen as to when the animal lived on the earth. In the case
of fossils; which are essentially bones that have fossilized, meaning turned to
stone; fossils are generally dated on the basis of factors other than
radiometric dating; such as a particular date may be chosen for a fossil
because the date is consistent with
other aspects of the theory of evolution. Thus, the
theory of evolution is essentially used to date fossils in order to
create "evidence" for the theory of evolution. This is a self-serving way of dating fossils,
but it is a fact. In the
older extinct species, such as dinosaurs, the soft tissue (e.g. blood, brains,
muscle, etc.) decomposes and is gone by now (in almost all cases). Only hard parts of the body, such as bones
and teeth remain. But even these don't
really remain; they are fossilized and have turned to stone. While the
reader may assume that it takes millions of years to turn a biological specimen
to stone, actually it has been demonstrated to have happened in less than 100 years (not 100
million years, just 100 years). This is
not theory; it is based on actual samples. Because of
fossilization, and other reasons (i.e. when an unstable parent atom becomes a
stable daughter atom, the dating of the specimen can no longer be done
accurately), dating of old fossils is generally impossible to do directly. Thus, many assumptions must be made to date
fossils. These
assumptions leave the door wide open for huge debates as to when a particular
species lived on this earth. They are
not so much debates as contests in creating thinking. Radiometric Dating Radiometric
dating is generally done on bones or tissue, and is supposedly the most
scientific and most accurate dating technique. However,
even radiometric dating is a subject of controversy. The truth is that flaws in radiometric dating
are intentionally ignored in order for the specimen to yield dates which are
grossly inaccurate. It is not that
the technique itself is inaccurate; it is that key factors are intentionally
ignored. In other words, factors which
can have a huge affect on the dating of a sample are totally ignored!! Why would
science want to intentionally misrepresent when an animal lived on this
earth? The reason is that the theory of
evolution needs many, many, many millions of years to justify the time
necessary to "prove" the theory of evolution could have happened. But even
more important than that, it is critical for the scientific establishment to
date human skeletons to be older than Adam and Eve, the first humans mentioned
in the Bible. Thus,
evolutionists tend to favor techniques which lead to huge numbers of years
since the specimen died. The important
issue, however, is that the evolutionists use techniques which are scientifically known to be
massively flawed. The Theories Behind Radiometric Dating All living tissue
has radioactive isotopes in it. For
example, carbon-14 is a carbon molecule with 14 electrons. It is well
known how much carbon-14 is in the tissue of an animal (including a human
being) while they are alive, meaning at the time of death. After an
animal dies (including humans) the amount of carbon-14 naturally
"decays," meaning converts into a non-radioactive molecule. The amount
of decay is a function of time. Thus, if
scientists can determine the level of radioactive carbon-14 in the bone of a
dead animal (including humans); they can determine when that animal died. There are
actually many different types of radioactive atoms which can be used to perform
radiometric dating and many different techniques and theories. But there
are severe problems with radiometric dating.
I will not discuss all of the potential problems, just the key ones. Leeching of
Radiometric Material To
understand the problem, suppose there are two animals that died on the same
day. The first animal, at the time of
death, was immediately moved to an air conditioned building located in the
desert. The humidity in this desert was
very, very low. Furthermore, because the
specimen was indoors, no moisture from the rare rainfall ever touched the
specimen. Furthermore, the specimen was
kept cool and in a dark room. On the
other hand, the second specimen was buried next to a river in a shallow
grave. The bones were exposed to the
moisture in the soil due to the river.
The bones were exposed to the high humidity of the general area. The bones were exposed to the extreme
moisture of the flooding of the river; during which time the specimen was
literally soaking underwater. And the
specimen was exposed to the water from rainfall since it was in a shallow
grave. Water flowing down from nearby
hills would have increased the amount of water the bones were exposed to due to
the rain. Will
radioactive dating give the same date for both specimens? Absolutely not!! The second specimen may date to be ten times older, or more, than
the first species. Why is this
so? The reason
is that moisture, from any source, will "leech" or draw out
radioactive material from the bones of the sample. If one specimen is exposed to very high
levels of moisture, a great deal of radioactive material will leech out of the
specimen and the radiometric dating will date the species far, far too old. This lack of radioactive material
will be interpreted by scientists as radioactive decay. But it is not radioactive decay,
it is leeching of radioactive atoms by moisture or heat. The problem
is that radiometric labs don't make any type of adjustment in their dating of
bones for known or potential moisture or heat which might have affected the
sample. For
example, if the first specimen dated to be 500 years old, the second specimen might
have dated to 5,000 years or more. Yet
the two animals died on the same day!! It is not
that the radioactive isotope was miscounted; it is because the lab totally
failed to take into account the environment the sample was decaying in. Caves All of the
common types of caves were formed by water.
The water may have come from above (e.g. rainfall or a creek) or it may
have come from below (i.e. a hot spring), but all of the common types of caves
were cut-out by water. Caves are
very, very humid because there is almost always an existing source of water in
the cave, such as a creek or dripping water, to name but two sources. Thus,
skeletons found in caves are, by definition, highly exposed to moisture. Do
scientists take the massive amount of moisture found in caves into account when
they date a skeleton found in a cave? Of course not. Even though
the moisture in a cave can be more accurately estimated than the moisture a
skeleton found buried next to a river is exposed to; scientists still do not
take this into account. Is this
because scientists are simply incompetent or is it because scientists
intentionally want us to believe that all skeletons are very, very old? Since caves
are places where "cave men" have dwelled, it is critical to calculate
very high dates for "cave men," meaning it is important to make their
bones seem very, very old. The goal is
to get the date prior to 6,000 B.C., when most Christians believe Adam and Eve
lived. When they can do that, by
trickery, it appears the Bible is not accurate. In
addition, most cave drawing were drawn using organic material, such as
blood. Would the humidity in caves
affect the dating of cave drawings?
Absolutely!! Yet the dating of
cave drawings never takes into account the high humidity
in caves. A Real World Example To better
understand these concepts, let us consider the Kennewick man (or Richland Man),
which is the skeleton of a man who was found buried next to a river at
Kennewick, state of Washington. His
bones had been scattered by the waves of the Rivers
flood. This is especially true of rivers
before dams were built. Since this
man died before dams were built on this particular river (and it is doubtful
the effects of any dam are felt in the location his bones were found), it is
clear that after he died the river flooded many times before any dams were
built on this river. Each time
this river flooded, water from the river would have leeched radioactive
material from his bones; thus lowering the percentage of radioactive material
in his bones and thus making his bones look much older than they really were. In addition
to this, soil next to a river is obviously very moist; meaning the soil has
more water in it than normal soil, say in a cemetery at the top of a hill. Furthermore,
rain from the clouds also travels down from the top of the soil though the
soil. If there had been hills near the
sample even more rainwater would have reached the bones. How many
inches of rain fell on this particular area while the bones were in the
ground? No one knows. Under ideal
conditions, the lowering of the percentage of radioactive material in a sample is
only caused by decay. But in the case of
this man, the lowering of radioactive material was exacerbated (i.e. increased)
by the additional actions of water leeching radioactive materials from the bone
material. Thus, when
scientists determined the percentage of radioactive material in his bones, if
they did not take into account an estimate of how much extra radioactive
material was leeched out of the bones by a river flooding, by rainwater, by
moist soil next to a river, etc., their dates would be very, very wrong. In reality,
the scientists did not take any of these things into account. Rather than
providing a range of dates for this skeleton, which took an estimate of the
above items into account, scientists totally ignored these items and simply
gave a single date as if the skeleton were wrapped in plastic, frozen and
protected from all kinds of moisture and heat. To ignore
these items, and other items, is incompetence at best. It is sloppy science and it represents an inexcusable
lack of integrity. The dates they
provided for this skeleton were wrong by a wide margin. The lab
dated this skeleton as being 9,000 years old.
No doubt evolutionists were excited because this date was far before the
Biblical date of Adam and Eve of 6,000 years ago. The only
problem is that the 9,000 year date is total, blatant scientific nonsense. This skeleton
could have been of a man who died less then 500 years ago. It is highly unlikely this man died more than
a thousand years ago, considering he died or was buried next to a large river. This is one
example of how, and why, the
known flaws in radiometric dating are ignored by the scientific establishment. Additional Situations In nature,
animals need water. In certain
locations, such as water holes (i.e. small ponds or other sources of water); animals
tend to congregate. When you
have a wide variety of animals at a specific water hole, there is likely to be
fighting, either because these species always fight when they are in the same
location or they may fight to get water, such as during a drought. In either
case, water holes are common locations to look for, and find, animal
skeletons. These skeletons have exactly
the same potential problems for error that the In
addition, some climates have a lot more rain than other climates. This is never taken into account when dating
skeletons. In addition
to these things, little is known about how much of the earth was covered with
water during the flood of Noah. We do
know that parts of the earth were covered with water for more than a year. However, some parts of the earth may have
been covered by water for less that a year or for no time at all (because Noah
didn't travel all over the world to know how much of the world was covered with
water). Other parts of the earth could
have been covered by water for much, much more than a year. For
example, suppose What is
interesting about the flood is that the writers of the Bible did not know that
radiometric dating techniques would be flawed in the twenty-first century. Thus, the
writers of the Bible cannot be accused of fabricating the flood of Noah in
order to justify God placing Adam and Eve on this earth about 6,000 years ago. There was no scientific reason to fabricate the
flood of Noah when the Bible was originally written. What Should Be Done First, scientists
should do many experiments to try to understand just how significant a skeleton
soaked in water (due to flooding of a river, flooding of a pond by rain, etc.) and
other scenarios, affects the dating of organic matter. Second,
they should then give realistic ranges
of possible dates as to when a person or animal died. For
example, in the case of Kennewick man, instead of saying that this man died
9,000 years ago, which is totally
ludicrous, scientists should have taken into account highly probable
flooding rates, the known moisture of soil next to the river, estimated
rainfall levels, nearby hills, etc. etc.
Then they should have given a range
of dates as to when he died. These
ranges of dates would NOT have
been from 500 years to 9,000 years, for example, because it is known that this
river would have flooded and that the soil was moist (because the body was next
to a river). The range should have been
something like: from 500 to 2,000 years old.
Actually, the bones could have been of a man who died 200 years
ago. That is how much water this
skeleton was exposed to. The example
of However,
even though it is inexcusable, there is a reason for their incompetence. The reason is that the "science
establishment" (the people who control the big money) wants to get the
dates of fossils as high as possible to justify the theory of evolution and
belittle those who believe in the Bible. Let's look
at other examples. In these cases,
however, it is a known fact when the events occurred. Another Problem -
Radiation (including Heat) Suppose a
skeleton is found in the middle of a large desert. Is this skeleton exempt from errors in
radiometric dating? The answer
is absolutely 'no'. Scientists
may not know when the climate changed and an area of earth which was highly
exposed to water (e.g. the area was covered by an ocean) suddenly or slowly
became exposed to dry heat and became a desert. But that is
not all, radiation, including heat, can speed up the appearance of decay of
radioactive material. This can be caused
by evaporation (technically: volatilization), the migrating of atoms, exciting
the atoms by heat, etc. For
example, consider the Kaupelehu Flow, Hualalai Volcano; which occurred in 1800-1801. Twelve different samples were taken of the
lava. The range of dates for these
samples ranged from 140 million
years ago to 2.96 billion
years ago. While the ocean water may
have affected the dating of these samples; many things could affect the dating
of any sample! Thus, a volcano which
occurred a little over 200 years ago, dated to about 3 billion years ago using state-of-the-art dating techniques. Five
different samples were taken from What does
this tell us about fossils of near-humans who were killed by a volcano, or
whose skeleton had volcano lava run over it after the death of the individual? It tells us dating of fossils is a very
inexact science. That is exactly the way
the scientific establishment likes it. The Age of the Earth The age of
the earth (i.e. rocks) is not really important to most creation
scientists. This is because Christ, who
the New Testament designates as the Creator, may have used a pre-existing
planet to put life onto. For
example, let us think about the construction of a planet like earth. Building a
planet must involve many steps. For
example, the moon Europa of Jupiter has a huge ice
surface. Scientists are certain that
underneath that ice are large oceans of water. Is the
planet Europa on the path to someday being an earth
inhabited by humans like ourselves? Is Europa going to
be used for a source of water by other planets under
"construction?" Another moon
of Jupiter is an incredible source of energy. I am not
talking about humans converting Europa into an
inhabited planet, but I am talking about God moving Europa
to another orbit and converting it into an inhabitable planet. Of God may take water or other key atoms and
molecules from Europa and move them to another
planet. How about
the planet Venus? According to
scientists, Venus is similar in size and gravity to earth, but cannot be
inhabited due to its temperature, dense atmosphere and chemical
composition. It is claimed Venus has
zero water and zero hydrogen. Is Venus
being prepared to become an inhabited planet some day? Will it get some of its water from Europa? What is the
sequence of stages in which a planet goes through to be ready for earth life? Is Europa early in these stages, or late in these stages or
just a source of water? Is Venus early
in these stages or late in these stages?
Where is Mars in this process, assuming Mars
will some day be inhabited. The point
is that God can move planets from one orbit to another and from one solar
system to another. We don't know how
long it takes a planet to be ready for life, but we do know that humans have no
clue how to take a planet like Europa and convert it
into a planet just like ours. But God
does. The point
is that making a planet like ours may be an assembly line to God. Only in this case, the assembly line involves
moving a planet from one orbit to another; and perhaps from one solar system to
another; and back, for example. But
certainly it involves moving the planet from one orbit to another. So just
like a human takes possession of a new automobile after it has been driven off of the assembly line; perhaps
Christ took possession of this planet after it was finished and moved to its
current orbit. The point
to this discussion is that Christ may have started putting life on this planet
after it was finished with the assembly line. In other
words, you don't put gas in the car when it is at the beginning of the assembly
line. Likewise, you don't put life on a
planet when it is orbiting Jupiter. Thus, our
earth could be 5 billion years old, but life on this earth (taking into account
the flawed radiometric dating techniques) could only be several thousand years
old. To make
matters worse, it is quite possible that dinosaurs and other prehistoric
animals were put on this earth prior
to Christ taking over this planet. In other
words, these animals may have been extinct prior to Christ taking over because
they lived on this earth near the end of the assembly line, but not at the end. For
example, dinosaurs and huge forests may have existed on this earth to make oil
and other fields of energy. Then they
went extinct and the planet was moved to another solar system or another orbit. There are
actually good reasons to believe this.
The animals which are currently fossils on this earth, and the animals
which are currently living on this earth, have almost nothing in common. Yes, there are some animals which appear in
both records, but the vast majority of animals which went extinct long ago have
no similarity to modern day animals. Summary In summary,
the dating of bones and fossils is a very imperfect science, riddled with
intentional errors. It is by far the
most subjective aspect of the evolution debate.
A person can read into the evidence any way they wish. From an
unbiased, scientific viewpoint; the creation scientists have a far stronger
case for their dating techniques than do the evolutionists. As far as
the evolution debate is concerned, this aspect of the debate is so complex and
so affected by pre-conceived notions (such as the fact that many dinosaur
fossils are dated according to their location on the phylogenetic
tree), that for all practical purposes, dating techniques cannot be used as a
proof for evolution or as a proof for creation science. Considering
that modern dating methods are corrupted by known flaws in radiometric dating;
by techniques which are known to be based on an assumption that the theory of
evolution is a fact; and by other flawed claims, it is clear that the dating of
bones, fossils, etc. is a non-differentiating issue. Creation
scientists, to be fair to the evolutionists, also assume various things about
the flood of Noah in order to obtain some of their dates. While the
reader may think that more information is needed to determine who
"wins" this issue; the fact is that all the information in the world
isn't going to end this aspect of the evolution debate. The good
news is that there are other issues of the evolution debate in which the data
is very convincing because real scientific data is available from living
species. One of these sources of
excellent information is that of "genetic entropy," meaning the
deterioration of the DNA of all animals.
Much more will be said about genetic entropy in later chapters. |