Search This Blog

Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Aging Disgracefully.

While most Biblical Creationists will be aware of Radiometric Dating's 'skeleton in the closet' concerning reliability of the method I think it beneficial to revisit it here. I am prompted to do so after reading an interview with Dr Brandon van der Ventel, Nuclear Physicist, in Creation Magazine this month.

Dr van der Ventel is just another scientist who, upon hearing a Biblical Creationist explanation of the world, abandoned his long held belief in Evolution and Long Age view of the age of the earth. Having taken up the Biblical Creationist position he has continued to have research published in peer reviewed journals.

On the subject of Radiometric Dating he recently had this to say:

"Radiometric dating does not measure the age directly, but rather the ratio of the radioactive (unstable) parent nucleus to the stable daughter nucleus, as well as the present decay rate. However, several assumptions need to be made to proceed with the calculation:

First, one needs to assume that here were no daughter nuclei present at the start; that is, the presence of the daughter nucleus is entirely due to the decay.

"Second, there had to be no leakage of either parent or daughter nuclei into or out of the sample. But how can we be sure of any of these assumptions if no-one was present when the rocks were
formed or if the change in the elements were not monitored over the entire geological history?

"Third, the equation is valid only if the decay rate
(λ) is a constant, and there is much evidence against this."

While each point is equally valid, that people can assert millions or billions of years age for a sample on the presumption of no consequential leakage of parent or daughter nuclei in all those millions or billions of years is just plain ludicrous!

Little wonder that Dr van der Ventel went on to say that a radiometric 'date' for rock layers near a fossil is accepted only if it fits into the grand evolutionary scheme of things. If this is not the case
then either new samples are taken or a different dating method is used. Notice, this is not akin to a system of 'checks and-balances' but rather a situation where results are 'reinterpreted' in order to obey the evolutionary dogma.

Also, radioactive 'dating' methods have also been known to give incorrect ages for samples of known age.

It is disappointing that Christians relinquish faith in the Word of God for such a flimsy explanation for dating rock samples and, indeed, the age of the earth.

Sam Drucker


John said...

"Disappointing"? Just dandy! Distrustful of God's guarantee I reckon i.e. his unambiguous statements in his word to the contrary.

The Jensen clan and their progeny will have lots to answer for. I mean, look at Michael: doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the Scriptures, doesn't believe Noah was a real person. What else does this wolf not believe in?

sam drucker said...

John, I'll be posting a blog in a couple of days relevant to the direction of your first paragraph.

Time will tell with respect to just where the man in question is heading in his theology.

Sam Drucker