About Arctica Expertise I can answer a broad range of questions about the history of life on Earth, from the origins of single-celled organisms to the evolutionary history of plants, invertebrates and, particularly, vertebrates. I am also experienced in debating creationists and can provide rebuttals of many common creationist arguments. I cannot, however, answer questions about archaeology, and I generally cannot answer technical questions about rocks, bone structures or fossils - I am a reader, not a digger.
Experience Many years of research into the history of life on Earth. I have no formal qualifications, but what I lack in technical expertise I make up for in range. I have spent many months debating creationists on the BBC''s science forum, and have consequently thoroughly researched a great deal of creationist and anti-creationist material.
Question I asked a creationists about current dating methods and this is what he said, is what he's saying valid?
You are repeating some claims by the evolutionists that are simply NOT TRUE. "scientists use several dating methods which all coincide with the same age" They don't tell you they select those that agree and throw away MANY others that don't agree. "dating methods on the fossil records on the continents seems conclusive" NOT TRUE!
Dr. John Morris, a geologist, explains in easy-to-understand terms how true science supports a young Earth. Includes a critique of major dating methods. Filled with facts that will equip layman and scientist alike. Transparency masters are provided in the second half of this book. Use them in your Sunday school, church or youth group to challenge and teach.
Radioactive dating in general depends on three major assumptions:
1. When the rock forms (hardens) there should only be parent radioactive atoms in the rock and no daughter radiogenic (derived by radioactive decay of another element) atoms;
2. After hardening, the rock must remain a closed system, that is, no parent or daughter atoms should be added to or removed from the rock by external influences such as percolating ground water; and
3. The radioactive decay rate must remain constant.
Radiometric dating methods make assumptions that have been proven to be inconsistent. If any of these assumptions are violated, then the technique fails and any ‘dates' are false. Leaching, varying isotope ratios, etc. indicate the methods at best are unreliable. Dr. Steve Austin at ICR tested rocks from the bottom and top of Grand Canyon. Three of the four methods showed that the bottom rocks were younger than the top rock an IMPOSSIBLE conclusion. The radiological methods date rocks that were liquid and are now solid. These rocks do not contain fossils. The fossil bearing rock is sedimentary (laid down under water in Noah's flood). Evolutionists consistently disregard radiometric dates that conflict with their time scheme. If a date doesn't support evolution they throw it away. See John Morris' "Young Earth" and the book “Bone of Contention” for a detailed study of “missing links of apes to men.
Carbon Dating is a method that is often cited to “prove” evolution. It does not because:
1) as a method it can only extend to 50,000 years not millions of years,
2) C14 can only date tissue not fossils (stone impressions of bones). When you find (some have been found) real dinosaur bones it is a testimony to creation because biological tissue won't last millions of years.
3) Carbon 14 has not come to balance in the atmosphere indicating a young not old atmosphere.
Answer Hi Eric, and thanks for your question. This is a huge subject and to properly answer all of the horrors contained within your creationist friend's diatribe would take hours. I will therefore point you to some very good articles which show what steps are taken to ensure the reliability of radiometric dating.
First, though, I'd like to say that carbon14 dating is NEVER used on dinosaur fossils, precisely because it is a fast-decaying isotope and only works on organic material. Nobody has ever found un-fossilized dinosaur bones, as far as I am aware. Ask your creationist friend for a reference to such a find. He can't make bold claims like that and not expect to be challenged on them.
Having said that, biological tissue CAN last millions of years - think of insects in amber. If a very small dinosaur was completely surrounded in tree sap, which then petrified, in theory a dinosaur's tissue could be preserved un-fossilized. Another substance like tar could perhaps preserve tissue pretty well, so I wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility of such finds in the future. I haven't heard of any, though.
The objections of creationists to radiometric datings methods are mostly taken care of by the Isochron method, which you can read about here:
I'm sure you will find it interesting reading (and not too long) - it will also give you all you need in order to see the horrible flaws in your creationist friend's arguments.
Final thought: ask him what the heck he means by "Carbon 14 has not come to balance in the atmosphere". Carbon 14 is constantly being added to the atmosphere, and thereafter it slowly decays. The amount being added varies over time, depending on a number of factors such as the amount of plant life on the planet and the amount of photosynthetic bacteria in the oceans. What would you friend consider 'balance'? No Carbon 14 at all? I honestly don't know what he means by that. He is obviously parrotting creationist arguments he has picked up from elsewhere and does not understand.
Well, I hope I've helped, and that the links give you valuable information. The talkorigins.org website seems to be running very slowly right now, but it may be better when you try it.
