>> Wednesday, August 25, 2010
I have been having a conversation with a hardcore evolutionist concerning radiometric dating methods. He gave me an article written by a so-called Christian that wrote a paper on the evidence for radiometric dating and how accurate it is.
Evolutionist think that radiometric dating is absolute. Here is a video by a scientist concerning radiometric dating and he demonstrates that it definitely isn't absolute. Water can destroy radiometric dating so if a world wide flood occurred, you couldn't get an accurate date from radiometric dating. That is just one problem. Another problem is the assumption that the rate of decay remained constant. That is a big problem if the earth is millions of years old.
a.) Need to be a closed system.
1. That is, that the process was not or is not affected by any outside or inside influences. The process is unhindered in development, it is separate from outside factors.
b.) Not have any of the daughter components present in the initial system.
2. If there existed any of the daughter components in the original system, you would have to know that amount and incorporate it into your calculations. Otherwise your age determination would be faulty.
c.) Have the same process rate.
3. Since the establishment of the system, the decay or process rate has remained stable and unchanged. If it were changed, then any calculation of the earth's age or the sample's age would be incorrect. To obtain a proper date, you would need to compensate for the fluctuating process rate.
The main and obvious problem with these assumptions is that they are not valid. Examine them closely.
1. Is there such a thing in nature as a closed system?
This is an ideal concept. But it is a non-existent ideal. The idea that a system in nature could remain closed (that is, not influenced by any outside sources) for millions or billions of years is absurd to the highest degree.
2. Is it possible to know the original components of a system formed billions of years ago?
According to evolutionists, there were no humans around during that time, so the notion that we can know the original components is once again absurd.
3. What process rate in an open system remains unchanged?
Every process in nature operates at a rate influenced by many different factors. If one of the factors changes, the rate is altered. Any so called 'age determination' by a physical process is, once stripped down, only an educated guess, and is most likely entirely unrelated to the actual age.
As we progress further in this evaluation, we will examine the actual processes by which these methods work, and carefully determine their validity and accuracy. Despite the overwhelmingly dogmatic support from the textbook community, the methods are simply inconsistent in the answers they put forth.
Of the dating methods that we will examine, the Uranium methods will be the first. The Uranium method is actually a compilation of a many methods. The function of this method is based on a chain of decay from Uranium and its sister element Thorium, into Lead and Helium. This process is called "alpha decay". The positively charged atoms of helium gas, otherwise known as alpha particles, escape the nuclei of the parent atoms at rates which have been shown to be statistically constant.
There are three decay chains in the Uranium methods:
1. Uranium 238 decays into Lead 206 plus 8 helium atoms; has a half-life of 4.5 billion years.
2. Uranium 235 decays into Lead 207 plus 7 helium atoms; has a half life of 0.7 billion years.
3. Thorium 232 decays into Lead 208 plus 7 helium atoms; has a half life of 14.1 billion years.
The crucial problem with these methods, in accordance to the invalid assumptions, is the fact that Uranium minerals NEVER exist in a closed system, only and always in open systems. Their reliability is commented on by Henry Faul:
"Uranium and lead both migrate (in shales) in geologic time, and detailed analyses have shown that useful ages cannot be obtained with them. Here again much chemical activity is known to take place and widely diverging ages can be measured on samples from the same spot."
Unless it is absolutely known that the system has always been a closed system, the dates provided are meaningless. Evelyn Driscoll said:
"If all of the age-dating methods (rubidium-strontium, uranium-lead and potassium-argon) had yielded the same ages, the picture would be neat. But they haven't."