Dating Methods

© 2000, Steve Bydeley

The ages of Adam and his offspring are given in Genesis and have been traced by Bishop Usher and others. They date the time of creation at about 4004 BC. Adding this to our 1999 AD gives us about 6000 years.

Evolutionists have concluded the age of the earth to be 4.5 billions years - based on using Radiometric dating methods as a clock. In fact, over the past three centuries evolutionists have been doubling the age of the earth every 15 years.

It is important to remember that the evolutionary process depends on long periods of time to be even remotely possible. This time span improves the chances that the elements needed to form life could come together in the right order. And, after coming together, that it should spring to life.

Are the Radiometric Dating methods a good 'Clock' for this purpose? Lets look at the qualities needed for a good clock.

· It must give a measurable change in time or be correctable.
· External forces must not influence it.
· It must match the time spans expected.
· It must calibrated to a standard.

There are over a hundred age indicators that show a young earth. Only those methods based on Radioactive Isotopes (unstable atoms) give long ages and so we'll look at these and specially Uranium.

Atoms are made up of a nucleus of protons and neutrons surrounded circled by electrons. The Hydrogen atom has one neutron, one proton and one electron. Helium has two of each of these. Oxygen has 8 of each. These atoms are stable in that they have equal numbers of neutrons and protons. Uranium has 92 protons, 146 neutrons and 92 electrons. Because there are more neutrons than protons it is unstable and called an Isotope. Because it is unstable it is internally driven to become stable. To become stable an Isotope throws out alpha (similar to Helium) and beta (electrons) particles (Gamma and X-rays). As these particles are thrown off in stages the Uranium becomes a different element at each stage until it ends as the much more stable isotope of Lead 206. This Lead 206 is called a daughter element of Uranium decay.

In a given rock sample the amounts of lead 206, and Uranium 238 can be measured. By using these values with the time it takes for this decay to happen a time span can be calculated. This sounds solid enough, but there are problems.

Let compare these problems to our ideal clock:

It must give a measurable change in time or be correctable

Can we assume that all the lead found is the result of decay from Uranium? A by-product of this decay process is the gas Helium. Measurements indicate there is not enough Helium in our atmosphere to account for all the lead present. Robert Gentry measured halos of Uranium that has migrated in wood prior to fossilizing. He found that this wood, from the area of the Colorado Plateau, took less than 50 years to turn to stone. In this type of sample any lead present would be the result of Uranium decay and when dated these samples were only several thousand years old not hundreds of millions.

External forces must not influence it

Can we assume that the rate that these Isotopes change is always constant? In 1972 some 14 Isotopes had their rates changed in laboratory experiments. We do not know what causes the particles to be thrown off. One theory suggests that we are immersed in a sea of subatomic meson particles and that these may cause the decay process. Is the density of this sea consistent? Measurements of Radiogenic halos have shown changes in the decay rates over time.

It must match the time spans 'expected'

Uranium has a half-life of 4.5 billion years. This means that after 4.5 billion years half of the Uranium has decayed to lead 206. After that many years half again has become lead 206 and so on. Potassium and Rubidium have half-lives of 1.3 billion and 47 billion respectively. These elements were chosen because evolutionist already 'know' that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. The Isotope of Carbon 14 has a half-life of 5760 years. After about 50,000 years it is almost gone and therefore is not suited to their purpose.

It must be calibrated to a standard

What the Physicists needed was some very old material of known age with which to 'set' or calibrate their clock. This would act as their standard. Geologists tell us (without proof) that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. That original Precambrian rock is used to calibrate the equipment. Once set to that 'Standard' every piece of rock checked against that 'standard' will show itself very old. But, every time this clock has been checked against volcanic rocks of known age the results were millions of times too high. If we chose to set the 'clock' using the assumption that the oldest rocks were only 6000 years old all the rocks checked show results in that order. In other words set the equipment to give you the results you want and presto - that's what you get. And all under the name of Science!

It was the need for a long time span to support evolution that dictated their choice of 4.5 billion years in spite of evidences to the contrary? Absolutely!

So then, what do you choose to believe - 4.5 billion or 6,000 years? It's really not science it's a choice - in what you want to believe. Your choice becomes the foundation, the premise on which your quest for knowledge is based. Wrong premise - wrong conclusions!