|
Evidence for an Old Earth: Case of the Missing Nuclides This article is a reply to "six-day creationist" Catholic Robert Sungenis and his article "Dialogue on Evolution vs. Creationism" in response to me (P), a "theistic evolutionist" Catholic. The primary purpose is to present once again the scientific data for the age of the earth and evolution, especially where these have been misunderstood or ignored by Bob. I don't claim to know a whole lot about radiometric dating, but I do read the sources (Dalrymple) carefully and enjoy learning what geology and biology I can. Just so you know my background, I am not a geologist or biologist but have a mere B.S. in Computer Science. Please check and verify any information below with the recognized authoritative scientific sources and knowledgeable experts in the pertinent fields. And note I still appreciate and recommend Bob's apologetics and theology books Not By Faith Alone, Not By Scripture Alone, and Not By Bread Alone (minus the young-earth stuff near the end of the latter book). This is not meant to take anything away from these still excellent books. But when it comes to "not by science alone" we have our strong disagreements. The following is divided into several sections. also Reply to
Sungenis on Theological Issues (Part 1)
Evidence for an Old Earth: Case of the Missing Nuclides
P.: As seen above, every nuclide with a half-life less than 80 million years (8.0 x 107) is missing from our region of the solar system, and every nuclide with a half-life greater than 80 million years is present. That means the solar system is much older than 80 million years, since the shorter-lived nuclides have simply decayed themselves out of existence. Since a nuclide becomes undetectable after about 10 to 20 half-lives (Dalrymple, page 378), multiplying 80 million times 10 (or 20) gives us about 800 million years (or 1.6 billion years). The earth must be at least that old since these nuclides have disappeared from nature. Sungenis: Not provable. The only thing we can safely say that the above numbers tell us is the half-life of the nuclides is in the 10^15 to 10^6 range and that some appear in our solar system and some do not. From a Creationist standpoint, God simply made the elements and designed them with the half lives we still see today. Some He included in our vicinity, some He didn't. The only thing we CAN say based on the half lives is that, if the Earth were to last 10^15 billion years, than half of the present Hafnium, for example, would still be present in 10^15 billion years. Any other conclusions are just speculation. Proof, as the saying goes, is only found in mathematics and alcohol. We're not talking about whether something is "provable" since science isn't about proof. Science is about evidence, and weighing the evidence in favor of one or another particular scientific theory or hypothesis. So let's consider the scientific evidence (not proof) for an old earth. Now the Sungenis response above completely ignores the fact that the exact nuclides that are missing have half-lives that are all less than 80 million years. The ones present have half-lives that are all greater than 80 million years. Does Sungenis deny this? This "some appear, some do not" (as if a random order) is not in my chart. Look at the whole chart here again. This needs to be explained from a six-day, young-earth creationist viewpoint, and not ignored. If the earth really were 10,000 to 15,000 years old (as Sungenis believes, see Not By Bread Alone, appendix 4, page 331, or the CAI online science articles here) then all of these elements should be with us today and found in nature. Their half-lives are just too great. None of them would have decayed away. But alas, the ones (all of them) precisely less than 80 million years old are gone. Sungenis has not explained this coherently. He is not looking at the data. This means not only that the earth has a finite age (or else all of them would have decayed away) but that age is much greater than 80 million years (and at least 800 million or 1.6 billion since it takes 10 to 20 half-lives for a radioactive element to decay away and thus become undetectable in nature). There is no way out of this from a young-earth standpoint other than to deny, distort, or ignore the data as Sungenis has done. The excuse "God made them that way a short time ago" does not explain anything scientifically. It would simply be a religious "blind faith" position. Nor does "God made the earth look very old" (appearance of age) "even though it is very young" explain anything. Yes, God being omnipotent, can do anything. But he would also not deceive us or contradict our God-given reason since He is the God of truth (Isaiah 65:16; Isaiah 1:18; 1 Peter 3:15). He created both His world and His Word (Romans 1:19-20; Psalm 19; Genesis 1). If you're going to invoke a "miracle" of deception here ("miraculous" half-lives created "just so" to give us the "appearance" of long ages), then we can't discuss the scientific evidence. All of science (geology, geochronology, astronomy, physics, etc) effectively goes out the window. More on this "appearance of age" argument after I'm done carefully presenting the details (once again) on the age of the earth. The Reliability of the Radiometric Dating Methods The development of radiometric dating used to determine the age of the earth has progressed with the following historical scientific discoveries:
Source: Dalrymple, from "The Age of the Earth in the Twentieth Century: A Problem (Mostly) Solved" in The Age of the Earth From 4004 BC to AD 2002 edited by Lewis/Knell (Geological Society, 2001), page 205. See also Changing Views of the History of the Earth which covers the highlights from 1600 AD to the present, and chapter 2 titled "Early Attempts: A Variety of Approaches" in Dalrymple [1991]. There are several reasons why the radiometric methods and dates received from them are reliable and can be trusted:
I presented the data for (3) in great detail in my previous article from the oldest rocks of earth, moon rocks, and meteorites. However (1) and (2) now need to be elaborated upon and defended. This gets a little technical but is necessary for a thorough answer. I strictly follow Dalrymple here who is the expert on the radiometric dating techniques. (1) half-life decay rates have been shown to be constant The assumption is that the rate at which decay proceeds in any given nuclide is either unalterable or that variations are quite negligible over a wide variety of physical and chemical conditions and for millions or billions of years of time. How reliable is this assumption? Unless there has been some undiscovered change in the fundamental nature of matter and energy since the universe formed, the presumption of constancy for radioactive decay is eminently reasonable (Dalrymple [1991], page 86-87). There are two basic reasons for this:
Several experiments have been conducted attempting to seriously change radioactive decay rates, those of Rutherford / Petavel in 1907 on 220Rn radon using a steel-encased cordite bomb -- they observed no change in the activity of the sample even though the explosion generated an estimated temperature of 2,500 degrees Celsius and a pressure of 1,013 bars; and that of Madame Curie / M. Kamerlingh Onnes in 1913 who lowered the temperature of a radium compound to -252.8 degrees Celsius (the boiling point of liquid hydrogen) and observed no change in the radium activity by more than 0.05% (Emery 1972; Hopke 1974). Other experiments involved varying gravity by measuring the rates on mountain-tops, in the depths of mines, by whirling in a centrifuge, or subjecting to magnetic fields as much as 8.3 Teslas. These early experiments and subsequent ones involving extremes of temperature, pressure, chemical state, electrical and magnetic fields have uniformly failed to induce any changes in the decay rates of a wide variety of alpha and beta emitters involved in radiometric dating (Dalrymple [1991], page 87-88). However, tiny changes in decay rates are theoretically possible. Example: The maximum difference in activity yet found between any two beryllium Be compounds is 0.18%. Although chemically induced changes in the electron capture (e.c.) decay rates of zirconium 89Zr (0.08%) and strontium 85Sr (0.005%) have been reported (Emery 1972), 7Be is the only isotope for which changes have been observed by more than one investigator (Hopke 1974). In summary, both theory and experiment have shown that changes in alpha, beta, and e.c. rates (the three main types of radioactive decay) are not only rare but exceedingly small. Even the largest observed change of 0.18% in beryllium 7Be would have a negligible effect on a calculated radiometric age. Also important is the fact that no changes have ever been detected in any of the isotopes used for dating and none of significance are theoretically expected. Of the physical and chemical processes that affect meteorites and rocks from the Earth and Moon, including pressure, temperature, gravity, magnetic and electric fields, none should affect radioactive decay to any significant degree. The assumption of constant decay rates is further strengthened by the consistency of the dating results received using the various radiometric methods (all "ticking" at different "clock" rates) from the past and present (Dalrymple [1991], page 89-90). see also the Usenet Physics FAQ at the Mathematics Dept of the Univ of California (Riverside) Emery, G. T. 1972. "Perturbation of nuclear decay
rates." Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22,
pages 165-202. (2) the isochron and concordia-discordia methods completely removes the unknown initial daughter problem In radiometric dating, the nearly ubiquitous presence of an unknown amount of initial daughter element generally prevents the use of the simple accumulation methods (see my original article describing some of these). The exceptions are the parent-daughter pair 40K and 40Ar (Potassium-Argon) and special but rare cases of other decay schemes. However, this "initial daughter" problem is easily solved by the application of isochron or concordia-discordia diagrams, and similar methods. As mentioned, the simple accumulation methods are based on two assumptions: (1) the amount of the initial daughter must be known, and (2) the rock being dated has remained a closed system (e.g. not being disturbed or reset by re-heating) since formation. The following graph is the decay of a radioactive parent isotope ( Pt ) and the corresponding accumulation of its daughter isotope ( Dt ). In a closed system, the sum of the parent and daughter isotopes ( Pt + Dt ) at any time equals the original amount of the parent isotope. The number of atoms represents the y-axis, and the elapsed time in half-lives represents the x-axis (Dalrymple [1991], page 85).
The problem of the unknown quantity of the initial daughter and whether the system is open or closed are solved by using age-diagnostic diagrams. These diagrams and their mathematical equivalents not only provide an age, but some provide an exact measure of the initial daughter, and some provide an age for systems that have not remained closed, and all are self-checking. An isochron is a line of equal time. It is obtained by analyzing several minerals from the same rock, or several rocks that formed from the same source at the same time but with differing amounts of the parent and daughter elements. On a simple graph, the amount of the parent isotope is plotted on the x-axis and the amount of the daughter isotope is plotted on the y-axis, both values being divided (or normalized) by the amount of a non-radiogenic isotope of the same element as the daughter. If the samples have been closed systems since they formed, the points will fall on a line (an isochron) whose slope is a function of the age of the rock. The intercept of the line on the x-axis gives a measure of the initial daughter. The isochron diagram, or "correlation diagram," or "isotope-evolution diagram" is a device of magnificent power and simplicity. The most common form of the isochron diagram was conceived in 1961 by L.O. Nicolaysen of the Bernard Price Institute of Geophysical Research, University of Witwatersrand, South Africa, who applied it to Rb-Sr (Rubidium-Strontium) data and suggested that it could be used for U-Pb (Uranium-Lead) data as well (Nicolaysen 1961). It is now a widely used geochronological tool, applicable in one form or another to all of the decay schemes used for radiometric dating (see Dalrymple [1991], pages 90, 102-115). Nicolaysen, L.O. 1961. Graphic interpretation of discordant age measurements on metamorphic rocks. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, vol 91, pages 198-206.
The diagram above represents a mineral and whole-rock Rubidium-Strontium isochron for the chondrite meteorite Tieschitz (after Minster and Allegre 1979, see Dalrymple [1991], page 110). Notice how the various elements taken from the rock (chondrule 1 and 2, pyroxene, olivine, whole rock A, B, C) all fall on a line. The slope of the line is the age of the rock (4.518 +/- 0.052 Ga = billions of years old). Points that fall on an isochron can confidently be interpreted as indicating the time of last isotopic homogenization, i.e. formation or re-formation of the rock. Thus, the isochron method is self-checking, providing not only the prospect of an age but also a statement on its validity. The concordia-discordia method works similarly and can be used on both open as well as closed systems, a feature of special value for dating old rocks with complex histories, and also is self-checking. The U-Pb (Uranium-Lead) concordia-discordia method differs from the simple isochron in the way it utilizes simultaneous decay and accumulation of two parent-daughter pairs, 238U to 206Pb and 235U to 207Pb. Disturbance of a sample due to partial Pb loss produces a "discordia" and permits the determination of the age of the rock. This method is especially resistant to heating and metamorphism and thus is extremely useful in rocks with complex histories, and is quite often used in conjunction with the K-Ar and Rb-Sr isochron methods to unravel the history of metamorphic rocks. Each of these methods responds differently to metamorphism and heating so the methods are also cross-checking (Dalrymple [1991], pages 115-119). Again, here is what I said: P.: If the rock incorporated some of the daughter isotope when it formed, then this initial amount of the daughter must be subtracted from the total amount measured. However, for the principal methods, the value of the initial daughter is either zero, negligible or not required (Dalrymple, page 84-86). This important point -- "for the principal methods, the value of the initial daughter is either zero, negligible, or not required" -- was ignored or misunderstood, and Sungenis goes on to describe some of the dating methods and half-lives. Sungenis: Potassium 40 breaks down into 88.8% Calcium 40 and 11.2% Argon 40. Although one could date rocks by calculating the Calcium 40 method, scientists realize that they do not know how much Calcium 40 was originally present. Instead, they date according to Argon 40, assuming that, when igneous rock melts and then hardens, the Potassium 40 decay to Argon 40 begins again. But the problem with this is that: (1) there is no way to know that all of the Argon 40 escaped when the rock melted; (2) there is always an amount of air-Argon remaining in the rock when it hardens, especially since air contains 1% Argon. Sungenis: Knowing these anomalies in the Potassium-Argon method, scientists tried to solve the problem by the Argon-Argon method. This method subjects the rock against a nuclear reactor for several hours. The nuclear reactor emits a large number of neutrons, which stimulates Potassium 39 to decay into Argon 39. The rock is then heated to release both Argon 40 and Argon 39 (representing the Potassium). The ratio of these are measured to determine the amount of Potassium 40 originally present. But the problem with this method is that if the rock has experienced high temperatures during any part of its formation, this will give a null result to the dating. As it stands, Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon are thought to be the best dating methods, since it is believed that one can determine the original amount of daughter element in the sample, but as we have seen, the anomalies remain. Sungenis: All the other dating methods, e.g., Rubidium-Strontium; Samarium-Neodymium; Lutetium-Hafnium, etc, are all less accurate since, by their own admission, scientists realize that there is always some undetermined amount of the daughter element in the original sample. Not true, and solved with the use of isochron and other methods. See above. Again, here is what I said in my original article that again was missed: P.: The K-Ar method is of limited use for the dating of meteorites, lunar rocks, or the oldest rocks from the earth due to its susceptibility to resetting by later heating. The 40Ar / 39Ar variant of the method overcomes many of these problems (Dalrymple, page 90-94). P.: Because of its relative resistance to post-formation events, the Rb-Sr dating (by the isochron method) is used extensively to determine the ages of the oldest rocks in the solar system (Dalrymple, page 94-95). P.: Because of the problems of initial Pb and Pb loss the U-Th-Pb methods of dating are most often applied with the use of "isochron" or "concordia-discordia" diagrams which circumvent the initial daughter problems mentioned earlier (Dalrymple, page 99-102). Therefore, the "anomalies" are well known and well accounted for during the dating process. Use of the isochron and/or concordia-discordia methods completely removes the initial daughter problem and implements self-checking techniques. The plot of the data and slope of the line displays graphically the age of the rock and reveals any anomalies in the dating. If the points fall on a line, the date can be trusted. If not, the rock system was not closed and/or re-heated or some other disturbance occurred since the rock's formation. The thousands of consistent radiometric dates published in the scientific literature is a test and confirmation, year after year, of the reliability of the radiometric dating methods. Sungenis: One of the more popular radioactive methods is the measurement of the decay of Uranium into Lead. Evolutionary theory holds that the half-life of Uranium 238 is 4.5 billion years, which, since they estimate the earth to be the same age, serves as a coincidental dating device. Other elemental pairs used in radiometric dating are: Samarium 147 to Deodymium 143 (half-life of 106 billion years); Rubidium 87 to Strontium 87 (half-life of 48.8 billion years); Rhenium 187 to Osmium 187 (half-life of 42 billion years); Lutetium 176 to Hafnium 176 (half-life of 38 billion years); Thorium 232 to Lead 208 (half-life of 14 billion years); Potassium 40 to Argon 40 (half-life of 1.26 billion years); Uranium 235 to Lead 207 (half-life of .7 billion years); Beryllium 10 to Boron 10 (half-life of 1.52 million years); Chlorine 36 to Argon 36 (half-life of 300,000 years); Carbon 14 to Nitrogen 14 (half-life of 5715 years). Data taken from N. E. Holden's Pure Appl. Chem. 62 (1990): 941-958. Whether these decay rates are correct or not remains to be seen. Decay rates measured within the last 50-80 years depend on a pure parent sample which is set aside for a length of time to produce the daughter element, but this assumes that the present decay rate has always been the same, which cannot be proven. Again, the notion of "proven." Proof is only to be found in mathematics and alcohol, not science in general which is based on evidence. Second, "evolutionary theory" is a separate question from dating rocks using the radiometric methods and the half-lives of elements. Geologists and physicists are generally not biologists, and they knew the earth was very old well before Darwin. See again Changing Views of the History of the Earth. Let's consider the evidence. I'm sure some of this same information is in Holden's Chemistry book. Dalrymple makes several points on the accuracy and precision of the dating.
Sungenis: Taking the known decay rate of Uranium from laboratory experiments, these results can then be compared to the remaining Uranium in the rock specimen, along with the amount of Lead in the rock, and it can be estimated how long it has taken for the Lead to form from the original Uranium. Although this sounds quite logical, it is only so in theory. The reason is that such a method depends on three unprovable assumptions: Sungenis: (1) all the Lead found in the specimen must be assumed to be originally from Uranium, but there is no way to know this for certain. There may have been some Lead already in the rock when it was formed, before the Uranium in the rock began to decay. Since it is known that natural Lead appears in rock, it is quite presumptuous to attribute all of it to Uranium decay. Of course, if the amount of Lead in the rock pre-existed the decay of Uranium, then the age of the rock will turn out to be much less than if all the Lead in the rock was due to Uranium decay. All answered above. U-Pb dating is done with either the isochron, or concordia-discordia, or both methods. And these are all self-checking and eliminates the "initial daughter" problem (see Dalrymple [1991], page 99ff, 115ff). Sungenis: (2) Due to the process of leaching, Uranium, as well as other radioactive elements, are quite capable of dissolving in water. Hence, if the rock was subjected to water for any length of time (of which there is an abundant supply on earth), this would directly effect the amount of Uranium the rock would contain at any given time. In this scenario, if one were to measure the age of the rock unaware that Uranium had leached out, the estimation of age would be much too great. Biblical scientists, who hold to a world-wide deluge as recorded in Genesis 6-9, assert that these flood waters would disrupt all such isotope dating in which the parent element was subject to leaching. Water, "leaching," "dissolving in water," or Noah's Ark has nothing to do with the age of the earth or decay rates. Nice try, but the Flood of Noah (the "Noachian Deluge"), whether it was worldwide or local, and the text of Genesis 6-9 has nothing whatsoever to do with radiometric dating. I will not allow any biblical discussion here. We are discussing the scientific evidence, not the Genesis text. You're going to have to deal with Dalrymple without quoting the Bible. I know, not easy to do. Sungenis: (3) Current radiometric dating assumes the rate of decay has remained constant for millions of years, without any appreciable deviation due to outside forces. This is commonly known as uniformitarianism. Although it is true that radioactive atoms have been subjected to temperature, pressure and chemical changes in the laboratory without changing their decay rate, still, natural forces, such as neutrinos from cosmic radiation disturb the decay process. The decay rates of ions are known to differ from neutral atoms. Decay rate is also based on the speed of light, which, as of this past decade, numerous laboratory experiments and astronomical anomalies show that it is not constant. In addition, such things as the reversal of the earth's magnetic field, which has been documented as occurring in both the past and near present, as well as any galactic event, such as a supernovae explosion, could cause alterations to the decay rate of radioactive elements. "Uniformitarianism" is an old terminology that no longer accurately describes all modern geology. Most geologists as I understand it would accept a combination of (minor) catastrophes and well-tested and well-established uniformitarian principles (e.g. constant decay rates) to describe earth's history and geological events. See also Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale. Let's examine some of these statements from Sungenis: "it is true that radioactive atoms have been subjected to temperature, pressure and chemical changes in the laboratory without changing their decay rate" Thanks for the admission. See the details from Dalrymple above on why the decay rates are considered constant. They have not changed, the results are numerous and consistent, thus the dates are reliable. Therefore, we can be confident the earth is very old: 4.5 to 4.6 billion to be exact. "neutrinos from cosmic radiation disturb the decay process" They do not. Morris, Slusher, and Rybka (creationists from the 1970s and 80s) were all answered by Dalrymple on this 20 years ago. From Dalrymple, "How Old is the Earth? A Reply to Scientific Creationism" Proceedings of the 63rd Annual Meeting of the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Volume 1, Part 3, edited by Frank Awbrey and William Thwaites, April 30, 1984, pages 66-131
Summary: The "neutrinos released in a supernova" hypothesis was in a column called "scientific speculation." The hypothesis was highly speculative, the author does not say decay rates would change, nor how the radiometric clocks would be reset, and he provides no evidence in support. The argument by Dudley was refuted by Brush who points out both relativity and quantum mechanics must be rejected if his hypothesis were true. Dudley rejects the young-earth conclusions drawn by the creationists noting that the age of the earth would only be effected by a few percent. The earth would still be older than 4 billion years. So much for the "neutrinos" speculation. see also Cosmic
Rays and Radiometric Decay Rates "decay rates of ions are known to differ from neutral atoms" If Sungenis means by "neutral atoms" those that do not have any electrical charge, that point is irrelevant. The question is whether the decay rates of the specific long-lived radioisotopes used in the various dating methods mentioned above do decay at the constant rates specified above. Dalrymple has given the reasons why they remain constant (see above). The elements or nuclides that are not radioactive do not decay, and they are not used in dating. For more see the Usenet Physics FAQ at the Mathematics Dept of the Univ of California (Riverside). "The existence of changes in radioactive decay rates due to the environment of the decaying nuclei is on solid grounds both experimentally and theoretically. But the magnitude of the changes is nothing to get very excited about." Reference: The best review article on this subject is (now 30 years old) : G. T. Emery, "Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates," Annual Reviews of Nuclear Science, vol 22, page 165 (1972), which Dalrymple also refers to above. "numerous laboratory experiments and astronomical anomalies show that the speed of light is not constant" What are they? Setterfield? And what are the astronomical anomalies changing light speed or nuclear decay rates? Answered briefly at the following links: see The
Decay of C-Decay "reversal of the earth's magnetic field or any galactic event, such as a supernovae explosion, could cause alterations to the decay rate of radioactive elements" Where is your evidence that change in the magnetic fields, supernovae explosions, or other such events would affect decay rates? All of these are answered above or at the following links. see Cosmic
Rays and Radiometric Decay Rates Sungenis: Although other elements are often used to measure radioactive decay, such as Potassium, Thorium, Strontium, and a half dozen others, they are all subject to the same above caveats as Uranium. In fact, some of these elements are even more soluble in water than Uranium salts. Again, the irrelevant reference to water and (this time) "Uranium salts." Yes, salt does dissolve in water. That's nice to know. However, water, solubility, salt, and the Noachian Deluge has nothing whatsoever to do with radiometric dating. These don't affect the decay rates in the slightest. Produce your scientific evidence for a young earth once and for all, and annihilate Dalrymple's explanations of the radiometric dating methods as totally unreliable, or accept the ancient age of the earth (4.5 to 4.6 billion give or take a few million). see How
Old is the Earth the 1984 reply to creationism by Dalrymple Next we present again the data received from the reliable and consistent radiometric dating of the oldest earth rocks, ancient lunar rocks and meteorites. Evidence for an Old Earth: Archean Rocks, Moon Rocks, and Meteorites (up to ~4.6 billion years old) The following is a summary of the data from the oldest (Archean) earth rocks (see my previous article)
These dates were arrived at using the various radiometric accumulation clocks and methods. Therefore, based on the reliability of these methods explained in detail above, we can be sure these dates are accurate. The oldest rocks on earth approach 3.7 - 3.8 billion years old. A summary of the data from the oldest moon rocks from the various Apollo lunar missions (see my previous article)
These dates were arrived at using the various radiometric accumulation clocks and methods. Therefore, based on the reliability of these methods explained in detail above, we can be sure these dates are accurate. The oldest moon rocks approach 4.5 billion years old. The case doesn't look good for a "young earth" some 10,000 to 15,000 years old. Sungenis: Moon rocks don't add anything to the discussion, since the same unproven presuppositions are used to date moon rocks as earth rocks. Ignore the data, that's all a young-earther can do. The numerous dates are clearly consistent, with various radiometric clocks, on various and numerous minerals and rocks. Therefore, the dates can be trusted. What about meteorites?
Again, using different radiometric clocks and methods, consistent dates are achieved. The case for a "young earth" doesn't look good. In fact, it looks terrible. Where are the young dates in the thousands of years? Why all the old dates approaching 4.5 billion years old, if the earth is not -- surprise -- 4.5 billion years old, since the earth almost certainly was formed with the moon and rest of the solar system. I didn't cover chapter 7 of Dalrymple [1991] which narrows down the precise age of the earth using the growth of lead isotopes in the "Holmes-Houtermans" system; the Gerling, Holmes, Houtermans model and age of the earth's crust; C.C. Patterson and the meteoritic lead isochron; the Pb-Pb ages of meteorites, etc. Dalrymple concludes the piece de resistance of chapter 7 "Isotopes of Lead: The Hourglass of the Solar System" :
Sungenis: This data doesn't prove anything for the evolutionist. As I stated at the beginning of this critique, the only thing it shows is that these elements presently have the half-lives listed above, but whether this is proof that they existed billions of years ago is simply conjecture. The Creationist simply insists that, as God created DNA, cellular mechanisms, nucleons, and many other processes whole and functional, they would each carry with them the characteristics with which they were created. With radioactive elements, their half-lives were instilled in them at their ex nihilo creation. God chose these extended half-lives at that time because He wanted these radioactive elements to remain in mostly in their original state with little decay. This makes no sense. So God chose to deceive us? Again, another reference to the "appearance of age" argument. Science gets thrown out the window. The data is ignored. I repeat this scientific fact: the radioactive elements that remain ALL have half-lives greater than 80 million years old; the radioactive elements that are missing ALL have half-lives less than 80 million years old. Why is that? This points to one scientific conclusion: the earth is much older than 80 million years (and at least 800 million or 1.6 billion since it takes 10 to 20 half-lives for a radioactive element to become undetectable in nature). It doesn't point to the scientific conclusion "God made them look old" since that isn't science, that is a blind and misguided religious faith. Sure, God can do anything. But would He deceive us by the old-earth evidence He left on this supposedly very-young planet earth? What kind of Creator is that? "....For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse...." (Romans 1:20) How can that be -- "...have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made..." -- if we can't trust our scientific observation of nature, if God's creation is one giant deception? "The heavens declare the glory of God..." (Psalm 19) ? Apparently not, since the heavens (according to Sungenis) constantly lie and mislead us about the nature and age of God's creation. They appear very old, but are quite young? The heavens declare the deceptions of the Creator? Sungenis: As we have seen, radiometric evidence is not only an uncertain science, but for years evolutionists have been presupposing that a half-life of billions of years means that the element existed billions of years ago. At best this interpretation is unprovable, at worst, it is a fallacious and underhanded interpretation of the scientific data. The same goes for the geologic column. For years we have been told that the geologic column is a multi-million year chronology of Earth's history, since it has been assumed that strata were formed horizontally over extended periods of time. This simply is not provable, and there are not only viable alternatives that state that the geologic column formed vertically, but this hypothesis is also testable in the laboratory. Again, more talk about "proof." As we have seen, the scientific evidence is clear, consistent, and compelling, that's what matters. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, and this precise figure has been known by geologists and geochronologists since the 1950s. Evolution is a separate topic which I cover in Part 3. An approximately old age of the earth was known well before Darwin, so it has nothing to do with evolution. See again Changing Views of the History of the Earth. Sungenis: The only absolute certainty we have in this world is what comes from the mouth of God. In His word it states that He created the universe in six days, not six billion years or sixteen billion years. As for science, the facts are plain: we have found no irrefutable scientific evidence to deny this divine revelation, including that from Brent Dalrymple. -- Robert A. Sungenis, M.A. Catholic Apologetics International 12-2004 That's nice, but there are many exegetes who disagree on the meaning and interpretation of Genesis 1 and "days." That is not a scientific basis for an age of the earth. I quote again how the Catechism of the Catholic Church interprets the "six days" :
I will end with what professional scientists think of this "appearance of age" argument that Sungenis and young-earth creationists must resort to and finally, blame God for in their arguments repudiating modern science. Biologist Kenneth Miller writes:
The Orthodox Christian Theodosius Dobzhansky concurs:
In short, the "appearance of age" argument is blasphemous and "scientific" nonsense. It basically accuses God of great deception and makes all scientific study and observation of God's creation useless and superfluous, at least as it pertains to the age of the earth. Sungenis can keep his literal young-earth interpretation of Genesis if he wants but please don't suggest it fits what we know from modern science today. It does not. There is no scientific evidence for it. The young-earth interpretation of the 17th century has clearly been falsified by modern science and no Christian or Catholic should promote it in the 21st century. see also Radiometric
Dating, a Christian Perspective by Ken Wiens Responses to Young-Earth Creationists Rather than provide a detailed rebuttal of young-earth creationist mistaken claims, I will simply provide links below. Sungenis: In his very technical book, The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods (1999), John Woodmorappe investigated 494 geological dating tests written in various journals. Within those tests he found an assortment of fallacious claims and reasonings Sungenis: Directly related to the anomalies of radiometric dating is the case of Polonium halos. Dr. Robert Gentry, who tested over one hundred thousand samples of granite from a variety of places on the earth, found that each contained micaurbiatite, which in turn contained rings of Polonium. Responses to Woodmorappe and Gentry Henke
many articles on Woodmorappe Sungenis: In the 1994 publication, Grand Canyon, by geologist Stephen Austin, Ph.D. Sungenis: Evolutionists believe that the Tonto Group of the Grand Canyon occurred during the Cambrian period, since it contains many fossils associated with the 'Cambrian explosion.' The Cambrian period is said to have lasted 70 million years. Obviously, if the above data from Austin and Berthault is correct, it would categorically deny such a long time period to the Tonto Group. In fact, the experiments show that the Tonto group would have been formed in as little as days or weeks. Since the assumptions of stratification used by evolutionists had never been verified experimentally, just assumed, then there remains little objection they can raise.
Grand
Canyon in Northern Arizona TalkOrigins
short answer to Berthault Radiometric
Dating and the Geological Time Scale Book: Grand
Canyon Geology by Beus/Morales published by Oxford University Press
(2002, 2nd ed) next Reply
to Sungenis on Science Issues: Evolution (Part 3) P |
Reply
to Sungenis on Science Issues: Age of the Earth (Part 2)
Responses to Austin
and Berthault