No comments

Here’s the thing: we are supposed to believe it when a man wearing a glistening lab coat and tinkling test tubes tells us that he and his colleagues, in their little diggings, found a rock that is a million years old. Tragically, most people don’t see any reason to question statements such as these, and they let these cons spoon-feed them their stupefying poison. It is time for those days to be over.

Presently, we are dealing with the dating methods that are employed by evolutionary “scientists” to date fossils and other rocks, known as radioisotope dating. We are led to believe that these methods—and all such like—are viable, and so absolutely sure as to leave no room for question as to whether or not the results are reliable and accurate. But the part they don’t tell you is that these dating methods are, in reality, about as trustworthy as a child’s guess at how many jelly beans are in a jar. Why say this? Because it’s been proven—substantially. Yet they, as is their custom, sweep the facts under the rug, and spread the fantasy across every outlet of communication available to them (i.e., every single one available to mankind).

We will not get into the gory details of the dating methods themselves, save this brief analysis. The dating methods are based upon the decay rates of certain elements within the rocks. Take the uranium-lead method, for instance. Over time, uranium-238 produces lead-206. Thus, “scientists” say that they can determine the age of a rock via a comparative analysis of the uranium/lead ratio: the more lead, the older the rock, since more lead means more time was needed to produce it.

But here is the problem with this, and virtually every, dating method: the equation therein is incomplete, and thus necessitates certain assumptions to fill in the gaps. For example, in radioisotope dating, there are three basic assumptions:

  1. The initial conditions of the sample are known accurately;
  2. We can tell whether or not the rock has exchanged atoms with the surroundings during its history;
  3. The nuclear decay rate (or half-life) of the parent isotope has remained constant since the rock was formed.

Obviously, the subject matters of these assumptions are pretty crucial to arriving at an accurate conclusion. If any one of these assumptions is incorrect (and it is impossible for them to be otherwise, except for a “one-in-a-million” lucky guess), the conclusion is utterly worthless. The most important of these assumptions—and the most devastating to the cause of the propagandizing evolutionaries—is #3. In fact, RATE (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth), a group of seven scientists (two geologists, a geophysicist, three physicists, and a meteorologist), has conducted several scientific investigations and experiments, in which they have “obtained multiple lines of objective physical evidence that nuclear decay rates have been much higher in the past than we measure today. This evidence can account  for why the standard radioisotope methods often give ages in the range of millions or billions of years.”1

Perhaps an illustration will serve. Solve this riddle:

Suzy has seven marbles.
Suzy gives Billy four of her marbles.
How many marbles do Suzy and Billy each have, respectively?

That’s easy, right? Obviously, Suzy has three and Billy has four. Duh.

Wrong. In reality, the riddle was invalid from the start, for there is simply not enough information to be able to answer it. How so? Simply this: we are not told how many marbles Billy had to begin with, or whether or not he had any marbles at all. He may have had one marble, or he may have had one thousand marbles. In order to complete this question, one must make an assumption regarding the number of marbles Billy had at the beginning—and the starting number of marbles is so crucial an element of the equation as to make the margin of error without limitation! Thus it is with radioisotope dating methods.

Furthermore, in carbon-14 dating—the most familiar radioisotope method2 —scientists attempt to determine the age of a specimen by measuring the amount of carbon-14 in that specimen. Again avoiding the gory details, over time, the carbon-14 within a dead organism slowly decays [back] to nitrogen.2 Thus, scientists measure the remaining amount of carbon-14 in a specimen, and, thereupon, attempt to determine its age. Besides the aforementioned assumptions that invalidate such methods, there have been some interesting discoveries in relation to carbon-14. You see, based upon objective, scientific fact, virtually anything over 100,000 years old (in their time) will have no traceable amount of carbon-14. Well, guess what—not only has carbon-14 been found in a fossil or two that was supposedly far more ancient than 100,000 years, but such is actually the rule rather than the exception.3

When we add to these considerations the several occasions when a specimen, the age of which is known to be, for instance, 200 years old, is dated to be thousands of years old; or times when living organisms have been dated, with these fancy-shmancy methods, to be a thousand years old; or when an elephant-like creature was discovered in a man’s field, and was dated to be 10,000 years old, only to find out that the creature in question was merely the elephant of a traveling circus that died on the road, et cetera ad infinitum, it is plain to see that the dating methods of evolutionary “scientists” are utterly useless. 

We can think of no better statement to illustrate this than this one by an evolutionary, himself, Dr. Frederic B. Jueneman, from an issue of Industrial Research and Development:

“The age of our globe is thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radiodecay rates of uranium and thorium. Such ‘confirmation’ may be short-lived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radiodecay rates are not as constant as previously thoughtnor are they immune to environmental influences… And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the [so-called—sm] Mesozoic [Age] to a close may not be 65 million years ago but, rather, within the age and memory of man.”4

While the scientific evidence indicates that there was no such “age” as the Mesozoic (or any of the geologic ages, for that matter), this admission is telling. Here is a grandfather evolutionary admitting that the results of dating methods may be so miscalculated, that, with respect to the so-called Mesozoic Age, they may be off 60-65 million years! Talk about a wide margin of error! How about this: from now on, any time you hear an evolutionary “scientist”—or anyone on television, for that matter—say a number that is suffixed with the words “years old,” and especially “years ago,” just replace that number with flatulence, and you will be no less educated—in fact, you’ll be more so.

1 DeYoung, Don. Thousands… Not Billions. Green Forest: Master Books, 2005. p. 42. Print. Emp. added.
2 Ibid. pp. 46-7.
3 Ibid. p. 48.
4 Jueneman, Frederic B. “Industrial Research and Development. 1982. p. 21; per Wayne Jackson. Creation, Evolution, and the Age of the Earth. Stockton: Courier Publications, 2002. pp. 20-21. Print. Emp. added.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.