Scientific Evidence of a Young Earth

[Don]

The T. Rex bone marrow was discovered some years ago; in an article in a science magazine I read a couple of years ago, the scientist who discovered the bone marrow tissues had sent her results to several different laboratories for independent refutation or substantiation. One scientist told her he wouldn't even look at the study, because it wasn't possible.

I seem to recall from elementary school that it takes hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of years to form stalagmites and stalactites; yet, there are stalactites underneath the Lincoln Memorial and in the basement areas of the Empire State Building. Granted, these two structures have different chemical compositions than caverns and caves; but the point is that mineral content and moisture flow affect the growth rate, not the simple chemical composition itself.

"Science" covers a lot of different areas, one of them being medicine; and, as facetious as it may sound, there's a reason why we call it "practicing medicine"...science is a practice, a continual study, that requires mental and moral flexibility to admit error. Unfortunately, when it comes to the creation miracle, there is no flexibility by those that deny God's involvement.

 

[BobRyan]

>Web, have you seen the pictures of 20 ft. tall trees fossilized standing straight up? Old earth scientists say that they were fossilized in layers millions of years apart.

More likely buried in volcanic ash or mud.

Not likely - trees carried in ash and mud do not stand up. (See all the youtube videos on mudslides recently)

The trees in Mt St. Helen's Spirit Lake stand up however.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[DHK]

In the last 20 years several preserved dinosaurs have been found with soft tissue. Not fossils. One complete dinosaur was found with food in it's stomach. There have even been reports of DNA being extracted. Many scientists saw this as evidence that dinos were walking the earth until very recently, as soft tissue and DNA cannot survive long in the wild. Of course, this enraged Evos who say dinos passed off the scene over 70 million years ago, so they theorized that there must be a previously unknown form of preservation that can preserve soft tissue for millions of years. Absurd.

This is all documented by major universities and you can find it on the Web.

Yes. Not too long ago they found a woolly mammoth up in the Arctic. In the stomach were undigested grains and berries perfectly preserved, as was this ancient animal itself.
The only reasonable explanation: The Flood.

 

[nodak]

Why or how is the flood the only reasonable explanation? Why would the body not have rotted?

Ash and mud FLOWS do knock down trees. Sifting ash deposits do not.

And let's remember this: many who are not young earth creationists are very much believer's that God created all. Disagreeing about the method He used or disagreeing about the timeline does not equate with not accepting the Bible or not accepting God's truth.

Someone said evolutionists all believe we come from apes that come from snot on the ocean.

That isn't what I was taught by evo's in school. They believed we and apes came from a common ancestor, not that we came from apes. I reject what they believe but let's reject what they actually say.

My personal is take is that it is possible the YEC are correct, both scientifically and biblically. But I also believe if He so chose to do so the God I serve could have used billions of years and evolution. He is sovereign, I am not.

What lines up for me most biblically and scientifically is the gap theory. I believe scripture points to and hints at "something" happening in the past, concerning angels, and that it was catastrophic for the universe. I believe what we have in Genesis 1,2, and 3 tell of the relatively recent creation of the universe as we know it now. And I believe there is coming another major catastrophic event which will result in the new heavens and the new earth.

I also believe I could be wrong. And that all my brothers and sisters in Christ need to trust the Creator of all and focus on getting the gospel out a great deal more than we all focus on "doubtful disputations."

Peace.

 

[DHK]

What lines up for me most biblically and scientifically is the gap theory. I believe scripture points to and hints at "something" happening in the past, concerning angels, and that it was catastrophic for the universe. I believe what we have in Genesis 1,2, and 3 tell of the relatively recent creation of the universe as we know it now. And I believe there is coming another major catastrophic event which will result in the new heavens and the new earth.
Peace.

There are many good people that believe in the gap theory.
The one drawback of that theory is that it puts death before Adam. The Bible clearly teaches that death came through Adam's sin. Before Adam there was no sin and no death.

 

[eightball]

I'm an "Old Earth Christian".

Uranium decay dating alone indicates that the earth is millions/billions of years old.

Radioactive decay is steady, and unchanging it is used in atomic clocks as it is one of the most "steady" "unchanging" means of measurement.

Christian physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross' website, "Reasons To Believe" http://www.reasons.org/dr-hugh-ross.html has a great website that clearly shows how the earth is not thousands of years old but billions.

I've attended the "young earther" Christian seminars and the scientific approach that is used by these Christian, Young Earth scientific organizations is sadly lacking.

I've stood up and asked questions concerning the radioactive dating techniques used and how it refutes a young earth, and am surprised with "deer in the headlights" poor responses from the speakers.

Even more basic is the question of the word, "Day" in the Hebrew vocabulary of Moses' time. It can be a 24 hour day or an epical period of time.

 

[billwald]

Eightball - consider the sources of the responses.

 

[DHK]

I'm an "Old Earth Christian".

Uranium decay dating alone indicates that the earth is millions/billions of years old.

The Bible itself refutes this.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. (2 Peter 3:3-4)
--The doctrine stated above (as you also have stated) is called uniformitarianism. It is not scientifically accurate. All things do not decay at the same rate. We know that. There are factors that are not taken into consideration--factors in nature that could cause the rate of uranium decay to speed up or slow down. It is not reliable. None of the dating methods are reliable because of this.
They don't know what the starting point is--how much uranium there was to begin with.
They don't know how much uranium leaked out at any time during a natural catastrophe.
And further, the earth was created with an appearance of age. How old did Adam look at one day old--as old as an infant, or as old as a 30 year old man? What about a full grown tree that was already bearing fruit, and the stars in heaven already with light reaching the earth? The entire earth and universe was created with an appearance of age so that it would be impossible to date any such thing back to millions of years.

Radioactive decay is steady, and unchanging it is used in atomic clocks as it is one of the most "steady" "unchanging" means of measurement.

Note the same reasons as stated above.

Christian physicist, Dr. Hugh Ross' website, "Reasons To Believe" http://www.reasons.org/dr-hugh-ross.html has a great website that clearly shows how the earth is not thousands of years old but billions.

your link does not open for me, so I can't comment on it.
But clearly the evidence is lacking.

I've attended the "young earther" Christian seminars and the scientific approach that is used by these Christian, Young Earth scientific organizations is sadly lacking.

It is not the approach. It is what does the scientific evidence support? And the scientific evidence supports an earth that is somewhere between 6000 and 10,000 years old.

I've stood up and asked questions concerning the radioactive dating techniques used and how it refutes a young earth, and am surprised with "deer in the headlights" poor responses from the speakers.

I don't know who you have been asking, so I can't comment. I also don't know what you have read, so I can't comment there either. Perhaps you should read better literature on the subject.

Even more basic is the question of the word, "Day" in the Hebrew vocabulary of Moses' time. It can be a 24 hour day or an epical period of time.

On that you are wrong, especially when the word is used in conjunction with the phrase "and the evening and the morning were the ____day."

 

[nodak]

There are also many OEC who hold to exactly what the YEC folks do, just without the date setting.

 

[DHK]

There are also many OEC who hold to exactly what the YEC folks do, just without the date setting.

You can't hold to an old earth theory without also holding to basic flaws in your argument if you are to believe in creation at the same time.
1. The universe, the earth, and all that is created therein has an appearance of age, so that it is impossible to date beyond the date of creation.
2. All methods of dating were vastly distorted by the Flood if you are to believe the Biblical account of the Flood.
3. Dating methods such as Carbon 14 have never proven accurate beyond more than 2,000 years and yet it is the most common used method of dating not the ones that you have mentioned.
4. All dating methods have inherent flaws in them which even the Bible points out in the law of uniformitarianism.
5. Most people who believe in an earth that is millions of years old also try to justify it by saying that the days of creation are allegorical meaning that one day is as a thousand years or even more. The argument is irrational, as plants and insects, as well as other creatures cannot live through a thousand years of darkness. If a thousand years of light, then a thousand years of darkness. "And the morning and the evening were the___day.
6. If its the gap theory one believes in, then the problem of death raises its ugly head. Death and sin came via Adam's sin, and not before. The Bible is clear on that. The Gap Theory puts death before Adam. That is unbiblical.

All of these have to be taken into account if one is to say that they are to believe in Creation and an old earth at the same time.

 

[billwald]

Do we live in a real and physical world which would continue to exist if God took a picosecond vacation or do we only exist in the mind of God?

If both, please explain how you justify that in your mind particulary in respect to the "A can't be not A" denial of the thesis-antithesis-synthesis approach which is common on this list.

 

[eightball]

You can't hold to an old earth theory without also holding to basic flaws in your argument if you are to believe in creation at the same time.
1. The universe, the earth, and all that is created therein has an appearance of age, so that it is impossible to date beyond the date of creation.
2. All methods of dating were vastly distorted by the Flood if you are to believe the Biblical account of the Flood.
3. Dating methods such as Carbon 14 have never proven accurate beyond more than 2,000 years and yet it is the most common used method of dating not the ones that you have mentioned.
4. All dating methods have inherent flaws in them which even the Bible points out in the law of uniformitarianism.
5. Most people who believe in an earth that is millions of years old also try to justify it by saying that the days of creation are allegorical meaning that one day is as a thousand years or even more. The argument is irrational, as plants and insects, as well as other creatures cannot live through a thousand years of darkness. If a thousand years of light, then a thousand years of darkness. "And the morning and the evening were the___day.
6. If its the gap theory one believes in, then the problem of death raises its ugly head. Death and sin came via Adam's sin, and not before. The Bible is clear on that. The Gap Theory puts death before Adam. That is unbiblical.

All of these have to be taken into account if one is to say that they are to believe in Creation and an old earth at the same time.

I majored in Geology and I will say that radioactive decay is not an unreliable source or methodology of dating certain types of materials that cover the gamut from igneous rocks to carbonaceous fossils.

I will also say that there are no Cretaceous or Jurrasic period creatures of the reptilian or any species that have their original remains intact. Their bones, have been replaced with precipitated minerals from the soils that buried them.

When a T-Rex bone is chipped out of strata, you are not holding in your possession, a piece of calcium-rich bone with old marrow within. It is but an image of what was the shape of the original bone, that has been replaced with all kinds of precipitated minerals that solidified.

As for stalagtites and mites............There are those that form over relatively short periods, and those that take eons to form. It all goes back to the degree of chemicals/minerals and their level of concentrate in solution.

We have icicles overnight, but the ones that normally are found in limestone caves are not overnight wonders. The very solutions that drip off of and onto these tites and mites are measured to determine the rate of build-up and can be accurately determines at to their age or time of formation up to present.
*****
U235 is a rare Isotope of Uranium. It is found in igneous rocks both of those extruded in the open air and magma that cools deep beneath the earth and is not revealed until later via erosion.

The moment magma or rock is melted, and starts to cool, the internal clock of isotopic decay starts.

Isotopic U235 starts randomly breaking down to PB106 or what would be called Lead 206.

Lead 206 is also an unusual isotope of lead that is not formed in nature as a 206. Why? Because it only comes from the decay of U235. Now scientists many, many years ago measured accurately the decay rate of U235 to Lead/PB106. All the U235 that is found in an igneous rock and is formed at the birth of that magma starts to tick down or decay to 106PB. So here's the half life of U235 = 4.5 billion years! This means that if you find a piece of Granite(Interior cooled magma/lava) or extruded magma(surface erupted magma/lava), you can take a sampe of that rock and isolate both the U235 content and the PB106 content and determine it's age as you have isolated type of ticking atomic clock via decay isotopes within.

So if lab testing of a piece of granite indicated that the ratio between U235 and PB106 isotopes count is 10:1, then you have determined that 1/10 of the U235 has decayed to Pb106. So if the 1/2 life of U235 is 4.5 billion years; I.E. you would have 50% U235 and 50% Pb106 in that piece of Granite and it would be determined to be roughly 4.5 billion years old.

Well, there hasn't been any 50/50 U235-Pb106 ratios found in igeous rocks on earth.

But lets look back at the 10:1 ratio of Uranium to Lead that I used as an example of Granite that is tested. Now we see through testing that 1/10 of the U235 decayed to Pb106. So here's the simple math. So how many 1/10's are in 1/2........=yes 5/10's........So 5/10's Pb106 would mean we have a 4.5 billion year old piece of igneous rock.

Our sample that is 1/10 Pb106 would be 1/5 of 4.5 billion years.......= 900 million years.

Atomic clocks: They are the most accurate time pieces in the world. They operate on the basis of isotopic decay.

When you are measuring on the atomic level you are dealing decay of elements to other states with mine boggling radomness that evens the scales of accurate measurment.

Even Carbon 14 measurements work on the same principle. When something organic is created it also has an internal clock of isotopic decay that happens with such precision of mind boggling proportions. Carbon 12 and Carbon 14 are both isotopes.......12 being the most common. Never the less there is a decay of 14 that has a determined half life just like U235 to Pb106.

So Carbon dating is good to about 60,000 years.
******
Those here that question or say that isotopic decay is not reliable must present evidences where this atomic phenomena that God has laid out in His orderly universe does not work.

Yes, God can intervene in time.......Just as He gave Joshua additional time in battle keeping the sun from going down.

Other than those miraculous interventions, Chemistry, Physics, and science in general keeps reveally the orderliness of God's creation. Quantum Mechanics and Calculus work hand in hand, where scientists can mathematically predict compounds because of the undertanding of the various know elements atomic structures and how they interact with one another.

Even our earth's life sustaining position in the universe is a 1 in bezillion odds chance that it could have occured by chance. The distance that the earth is from the sun, from other planets, the Moons distance and orbit, the size of the sun, the distance from other starts, galaxies, it's magnetic field, it's speed of rotation, it's mass, had to all be so precise that the odds of all of these elements to make a perfect environment for life on this terrestrial ball is beyoned measure in odds of it happening.

Yet, science is finding out more and more about how there is order in Creation, not crazy randomness. Our God is a predictable, as revealed in scripture. We cannot read His mind, but we "know" that He is god, Holy, reliable, loving, forgiving, merciful, and all-life sustaining towards His creation.

 

[SpiritualMadMan]

Eightball,

You missed the point I made about there being other forms of Energy used by God that could vary the Radioisotopic content and decay rates.

Further, whether we have a Young Earth or an Old Earth, no one has been around long enough to be aboslutely sure that the decay rates we are seeing today were true 50,000 years ago.

It's an unknowable. Unless God tells us Himself.

We *like* to think that our present day extremely precise observations can be retroactively projected.

But, does the scientific method allow us to call this an established fact, a theory, or are we still at a hypothesis point?

 

[Dr. Walter]

I majored in Geology and I will say that radioactive decay is not an unreliable source or methodology of dating certain types of materials that cover the gamut from igneous rocks to carbonaceous fossils.

Did you take your training under Creationist Geologists or under Evolutionary Geologists? There are Creation Geologists with their Phd in Geology who dispute your line of reasoning.

The issue here is whether the data gained by the scientific method can make the assumption that what is, is what was. Your claiming that nothing in the past could influence the current factors that go into determining the data your are relying on.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World
by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.
Download Nuclear Decay: Evidence For A Young World PDF

Recent experiments commissioned by the RATE project1 indicate that "1.5 billion years" worth of nuclear decay took place in one or more short episodes between 4,000 and 14,000 years ago. The results strongly support our accelerated decay hypothesis, that episodes with billion-fold speed-ups of nuclear decay occurred in the recent past, such as during the Genesis flood, the Fall of Adam, or early Creation week. Such accelerations would shrink the alleged 4.5 billion year radioisotope age of the earth down to the 6,000 years that a straightforward reading of the Bible gives.

Our experiments measured how rapidly nuclear-decay-generated helium escapes from tiny radioactive crystals in granite-like rock. The data show that most of the helium generated by nuclear decay would have escaped during the alleged 1.5 billion year uniformitarian2 age of the rock, and there would be very little helium in the crystals today. But the crystals still retain large amounts of helium, amounts our experiments show are entirely consistent with an age of only thousands of years. Thus these data are evidence against the long ages of evolutionism and for the recent creation in Scripture. Here are some details:

Much Helium Begins in Radioactive Crystals
The research story starts in the late 1970s at Fenton Hill in the Jemez Mountains of New Mexico, about twenty miles west of Los Alamos, just west of a large volcanic caldera. Geoscientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory were drilling (figure 1) several miles deep into the hot, dry granitic rock beneath the site to determine how suitable it would be as a geothermal energy source. They sent drill core samples to Oak Ridge National Laboratory for analysis.

At Oak Ridge, Robert Gentry, a creationist physicist, and his colleagues ground up the rock, extracting hard, dense, microscopic crystals called zircons (figure 2, page iii). The zircons, were, as usual, radioactive. Much of the uranium and thorium in the earth's continental crust is in zircons, often imbedded in flakes of biotite, a black mica. The zircon-containing mica is scattered widely throughout the granitic rocks of the crust.

The radioactivity makes helium. As a uranium atom decays in many steps down to a lead atom, it emits eight alpha particles, each of which is a helium nucleus composed of two protons and two neutrons. For the crystal size we are concerned with, most of the emitted alpha particles stop within the zircon originating them. Then each alpha particle quickly gathers two electrons from the crystal and becomes a complete helium atom.

Much Helium Is Still in the Zircons
Helium is a lightweight, fast-moving, and "slippery" atom, not sticking chemically to other atoms. It can diffuse through solids relatively fast, meaning that helium atoms wiggle through the spaces between atoms in a crystal lattice. For the same reason it can leak rapidly through tiny holes and cracks, making it ideal for leak detection in laboratory vacuum systems. The rates are so great that those who believe in billions of years had expected most of the helium produced during the alleged long ages to have worked its way out of the crust and into the earth's atmosphere.

But the helium is not in the earth's atmosphere! When non-specialists hear that, they usually assume that helium has risen to the top of the atmosphere as it would in a balloon, and then that it has leaked from the top of the atmosphere into space. But unconfined helium spreads throughout the atmosphere from top to bottom, and the loss into space is actually quite small. Dr. Larry Vardiman, an ICR atmospheric scientist, has shown that even after accounting for the slow leakage into space, the earth's atmosphere has only about 0.04% of the helium it should have if the earth were billions of years old.3

In 1957 Melvin Cook, a creationist chemist, pointed out this problem in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature, asking in his title, "Where is the earth's radiogenic helium?"4 Radiogenic means, "generated by nuclear decay." In nearly half a century, uniformitarian scientists apparently have not found a good enough answer to publish in Nature. But creationists have a simple answer: most of the helium has not entered the earth's atmosphere. It is still in the earth's crust and mantle. In fact, the Oak Ridge team found that much of it is still in the zircons! It has not even had enough time to leak out of the crystals where it originated.

Los Alamos measurements5 of uranium, thorium, and lead in the zircons imply "1.5 billion" years worth of nuclear decay—at today's rates. Gentry et al. used the amounts of lead to calculate how much helium the decay had deposited in the zircons. Then they measured how much helium was still in the zircons. Comparing the two gave the percentage of helium still retained in the zircons, which they published in 1982.6

Their results were remarkable. Up to 58 percent of the radiogenic helium had not diffused out of the zircons. The percentages decreased with increasing depth and temperature in the borehole. That confirms diffusion had been happening, because the rate of diffusion in any material increases strongly with temperature. Also, the smaller the crystal, the less helium should be retained. These zircons were both tiny and hot, yet they had retained huge amounts of helium!

Experiments and Theory Needed
Many creationists, knowing how fast helium diffuses in many materials, believed it would be impossible for that much helium to remain in the zircons after 1.5 billion years. But we had no specific data to support our belief. As of 2000 the only reported helium diffusion data for zircons7 were ambiguous, and none existed at all for biotite. So the RATE project commissioned experiments to measure helium diffusion in zircon and biotite samples specifically from the Fenton Hill borehole.

We also needed theoretical models to interpret the data. Thinking biotite was the main restriction, we published8 two models showing the biotite diffusion rates required to make the zircons retain the observed amounts of helium at the observed borehole temperatures for a specified time. The "Evolution" model assumed the time was 1.5 billion years, with continuous production of helium during the whole period. The "Creation" model assumed the time was 6,000 years, with most of the helium produced in one or more bursts of accelerated nuclear decay near the beginning of that time.

RATE Experiments Show How Fast Helium Escapes
Our experiments showed that we need to account for both diffusion from zircon and biotite, but zircon is more important. The resulting new "Creation" model differs by less than 0.05% from the previous one. The "Evolution" model did not change. So the numbers in our first models are still valid, but they now apply to zircon instead of biotite.

Our zircon data agree with recently published data from another site,9 and both agree with our "Creation" model. The data allow us to calculate how long diffusion has been taking place—between 4,000 and 14,000 years! The diffusion rates are nearly 100,000 times higher than the maximum rates the "Evolution" model could allow. That leaves no hope for the 1.5 billion years. For most of that alleged time, the zircons would have to have been as cold as liquid nitrogen (196ºC below zero) to retain the observed amount of helium. Such a "cryogenic Earth" model would not help uniformitarians, because it would violate uniformitarianism!

Three of my colleagues and I10 on the RATE project are preparing a paper with full technical details which we hope to present at the International Conference on Creationism in Pittsburgh next summer. In the meantime, friends and supporters of the RATE project have good reason to rejoice with us over these preliminary results, which strongly uphold the 6,000-year timescale of Scripture.

 

[Dr. Walter]

Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages
by John Baumgardner, Ph.D.
Download Carbon Dating Undercuts Evolution's Long Ages PDF

Evolutionists generally feel secure even in the face of compelling creationist arguments today because of their utter confidence in the geological time scale. Even if they cannot provide a naturalistic mechanism, they appeal to the "fact of evolution," by which they mean an interpretation of earth history with a succession of different types of plants and animals in a drama spanning hundreds of millions of years.

The Bible, by contrast, paints a radically different picture of our planet's history. In particular, it describes a time when God catastrophically destroyed the earth and essentially all its life. The only consistent way to interpret the geological record in light of this event is to understand that fossil-bearing rocks are the result of a massive global Flood that occurred only a few thousand years ago and lasted but a year. This Biblical interpretation of the rock record implies that the animals and plants preserved as fossils were all contemporaries. This means trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals all dwelled on the planet simultaneously, and they perished together in this world-destroying cataclysm.

Although creationists have long pointed out the rock formations themselves testify unmistakably to water catastrophism on a global scale, evolutionists generally have ignored this testimony. This is partly due to the legacy of the doctrine of uniformitarianism passed down from one generation of geologists to the next since the time of Charles Lyell in the early nineteenth century. Uniformitarianism assumes that the vast amount of geological change recorded in the rocks is the product of slow and uniform processes operating over an immense span of time, as opposed to a global cataclysm of the type described in the Bible and other ancient texts.

With the discovery of radioactivity about a hundred years ago, evolutionists deeply committed to the uniformitarian outlook believed they finally had proof of the immense antiquity of the earth. In particular, they discovered the very slow nuclear decay rates of elements like Uranium while observing considerable amounts of the daughter products from such decay. They interpreted these discoveries as vindicating both uniformitarianism and evolution, which led to the domination of these beliefs in academic circles around the world throughout the twentieth century.

However, modern technology has produced a major fly in that uniformitarian ointment. A key technical advance, which occurred about 25 years ago, involved the ability to measure the ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms with extreme precision in very small samples of carbon, using an ion beam accelerator and a mass spectrometer. Prior to the advent of this accelerator mass spectrometer (AMS) method, the 14C/12C ratio was measured by counting the number of 14C decays. This earlier method was subject to considerable "noise" from cosmic rays.

The AMS method improved the sensitivity of the raw measurement of the 14C/12C ratio from approximately 1% of the modern value to about 0.001%, extending the theoretical range of sensitivity from about 40,000 years to about 90,000 years. The expectation was that this improvement in precision would make it possible to use this technique to date dramatically older fossil material.1 The big surprise, however, was that no fossil material could be found anywhere that had as little as 0.001% of the modern value!2 Since most of the scientists involved assumed the standard geological time scale was correct, the obvious explanation for the 14C they were detecting in their samples was contamination from some source of modern carbon with its high level of 14C. Therefore they mounted a major campaign to discover and eliminate the sources of such contamination. Although they identified and corrected a few relatively minor sources of 14C contamination, there still remained a significant level of 14C—typically about 100 times the ultimate sensitivity of the instrument—in samples that should have been utterly "14C-dead," including many from the deeper levels of the fossil-bearing part of the geological record.2

Let us consider what the AMS measurements imply from a quantitative standpoint. The ratio of 14C atoms to 12C atoms decreases by a factor of 2 every 5730 years. After 20 half-lives or 114,700 years (assuming hypothetically that earth history goes back that far), the 14C/12C ratio is decreased by a factor of 220, or about 1,000,000. After 1.5 million years, the ratio is diminished by a factor of 21500000/5730, or about 1079. This means that if one started with an amount of pure 14C equal to the mass of the entire observable universe, after 1.5 million years there should not be a single atom of 14C remaining! Routinely finding 14C/12C ratios on the order of 0.1-0.5% of the modern value—a hundred times or more above the AMS detection threshold—in samples supposedly tens to hundreds of millions of years old is therefore a huge anomaly for the uniformitarian framework.

This earnest effort to understand this "contamination problem" therefore generated scores of peer-reviewed papers in the standard radiocarbon literature during the last 20 years.2 Most of these papers acknowledge that most of the 14C in the samples studied appear to be intrinsic to the samples themselves, and they usually offer no explanation for its origin. The reality of significant levels of 14C in a wide variety of fossil sources from throughout the geological record has thus been established in the secular scientific literature by scientists who assume the standard geological time scale is valid and have no special desire for this result!

In view of the profound significance of these AMS 14C measurements, the ICR Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth (RATE) team has undertaken its own AMS 14C analyses of such fossil material.2 The first set of samples consisted of ten coals obtained from the U. S. Department of Energy Coal Sample Bank maintained at the Pennsylvania State University. The ten samples include three coals from the Eocene part of the geological record, three from the Cretaceous, and four from the Pennsylvanian. These samples were analyzed by one of the foremost AMS laboratories in the world. Figure 1 below shows in histogram form the results of these analyses.

These values fall squarely within the range already established in the peer-reviewed radiocarbon literature. When we average our results over each geological interval, we obtain remarkably similar values of 0.26 percent modern carbon (pmc) for Eocene, 0.21 pmc for Cretaceous, and 0.27 pmc for Pennsylvanian. Although the number of samples is small, we observe little difference in 14C level as a function of position in the geological record. This is consistent with the young-earth view that the entire macrofossil record up to the upper Cenozoic is the product of the Genesis Flood and therefore such fossils should share a common 14C age.


Percent Modern Carbon

Applying the uniformitarian approach of extrapolating 14C decay into the indefinite past translates the measured 14C/12C ratios into ages that are on the order of 50,000 years (2-50000/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). However, uniformitarian assumptions are inappropriate when one considers that the Genesis Flood removed vast amounts of living biomass from exchange with the atmosphere—organic material that now forms the earth's vast coal, oil, and oil shale deposits. A conservative estimate for the pre-Flood biomass is 100 times that of today. If one takes as a rough estimate for the total 14C in the biosphere before the cataclysm as 40% of what exists today and assumes a relatively uniform 14C level throughout the pre-Flood atmosphere and biomass, then we might expect a 14C/12C ratio of about 0.4% of today's value in the plants and animals at the onset of the Flood. With this more realistic pre-Flood 14C/12C ratio, we find that a value of 0.24 pmc corresponds to an age of only 4200 years (0.004 x 2-4200/5730 = 0.0024 = 0.24 pmc). Even though these estimates are rough, they illustrate the crucial importance of accounting for effects of the Flood cataclysm when translating a 14C/12C ratio into an actual age.

Percent Modern Carbon

Some readers at this point may be asking, how does one then account for the tens of millions and hundreds of millions of years that other radioisotope methods yield for the fossil record? Most of the other RATE projects address this important issue. Equally as persuasive as the 14C data is evidence from RATE measurements of the diffusion rate of Helium in zircon crystals that demonstrates the rate of nuclear decay of Uranium into Lead and Helium has been dramatically higher in the past and the uniformitarian assumption of a constant rate of decay is wrong.3 Another RATE project documents the existence of abundant Polonium radiohalos in granitic rocks that crystallized during the Flood and further demonstrates that the uniformitarian assumption of constant decay rates is incorrect.4 Another RATE project provides clues for why the 14C decay rate apparently was minimally affected during episodes of rapid decay of isotopes with long half-lives.5

The bottom line of this research is that the case is now extremely compelling that the fossil record was produced just a few thousand years ago by the global Flood cataclysm. The evidence reveals that macroevolution as an explanation for the origin of life on earth can therefore no longer be rationally defended.

Acknowledgement: The RATE team would like to express its heartfelt gratitude to the many generous donors who have made the high precision analyses at some of the best laboratories in the world possible. The credibility of our work in creation science research depends on these costly but crucial laboratory procedures.

 

[RAdam]

A hard nosed belief in uniformity in nature is unreasonable. There are precious few things that are truly uniform in this world. Scientists have bought into the idea of uniformity and say this proves their ideas. Problem is, they have no way to prove their idea of uniformity. Not only that, but uniformity completely disregards effects of a catastrophe.

 

[nodak]

The churches that taught gap theory I was part of did not have to deal with any big issue of death before the fall. The fall indeed brought death to this creation. Doesn't mean there could not have been death in a previous creation.

As to a hard nosed belief in uniformity? Of course. Otherwise, a miracle isn't a miracle in a random occurrence dominated universe.

 

[billwald]

>Even our earth's life sustaining position in the universe is a 1 in bezillion odds chance that it could have occured by chance.

NO, those are odds of it happening a 2nd time. It already happened once. Probability only applies to future events.

All we can say about this universe is that it happened. We only know about one universe and one event does not constitute a "statistic."

 

[DHK]

The churches that taught gap theory I was part of did not have to deal with any big issue of death before the fall. The fall indeed brought death to this creation. Doesn't mean there could not have been death in a previous creation.

As to a hard nosed belief in uniformity? Of course. Otherwise, a miracle isn't a miracle in a random occurrence dominated universe.

In all of the dating methods that you mentioned, if an archeologist was doing some excavation work near Brisbane, Australia, and had some artifacts dated millions of years old through various dating methods that you mentioned, even if he could find the same site after this flood recedes the results would be vastly different if tested by the same methods again. They have been interrupted. An occurrence has taken has taken place of such devastating proportions that would render all dating methods invalid and meaningless.

One must trust in the Bible at this point. Only the scoffers believe in the doctrine of uniformity--that all things continue as they have since the day of creation.