Think
of it this way. In the rocks there are different minerals, that, slowly, over
time, turn into other minerals; such as rubidium to strontium, potassium to
argon, and samarium to neodymium. Each of these parent isotopes, (rubidium,
potassium etc.) has a half-life of a certain amount of time, varying from many
years to hours or even minutes,while slowly part of it turns into the daughter isotope. If you think of it as an hour glass, with the
parent isotopes in the top and the daughter isotopes at the bottom, and see
sand in the top slowly going down to the bottom, you would propose that, to
find how long the glass has been turned you would count the amount at the
bottom, and measure how fast the sand is currently falling, and then come up
with you time frame. The time frames they come up with are almost always on the
scale of millions to billions of years.
If this method is used for radioactive decay rates in rocks,
(and it is) then it should be accurate, or so some would say. However, that is
not the case. Of course we must begin with assumptions. That the rate is
constant throughout history and that the rock began with no daughter isotopes, etc.
This is difficult and usually impossible to prove. We cannot be certain there
was no contamination, and this method only works with slow and gradual processes,
which are sometimes ruined by large catastrophes, such as a worldwide flood. Since
we cannot look at the past, we cannot say that the radioactive rate of decay
has always been constant.
On May 18, 1980, in Washington State, at Mt. St. Helens,
after the mountain’s eruption, a new lava dome began to form from October 26
onward within the volcanoes crater. In 1986, a K-Ar date yielded about 350,000
years for the whole rock, and the constituent minerals yielded dates up to 2.8
million years.(1)
In other words, rocks only about 6 years old dated at about
2.8 million-reliable? This is not an isolated incident. It is, again,
impossible to tell the past history of the rock, and the many assumptions made
in dating always give largely inflated numbers. In fact, diamonds have yielded
dates older than the earth is supposed to be old, even from an evolutionary
standpoint.(2)
The RATE project, done by ICR, found that radioactive
crystals called zicrons have small amount of U238 in them, which is slowly
changing into lead, however, as they do, they emit small amounts of helium.
However, in the crystals examined, there is still a great deal of helium, too
much for the earth to be not 4 billion years old or older.(3)
The following quote comes from an evolutionist, professor
Brew. If a… date supports our theories,
we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it
in a foot-note. And if it is completely ‘out of date’ we just drop it. (4)
Not necessarily fair
and reasonable science with an objective attitude. However, protected theories
are difficult to dissuade people from, because that would be allowing a Divine
Foot in the door.
Through His Strength We Will Conquer,
Andrew C. Abbott
Notes:
1: Snelling, 2009.
2: ibid.
3: Humphreys. 2003.
4: quoted by Snelling, 2009.
2: ibid.
3: Humphreys. 2003.
4: quoted by Snelling, 2009.
No comments:
Post a Comment