Chapter Five | radiometric dating 

Let’s look at what might be the number one reason why most people reject a Young Earth Biblical Creationist point of view: the so-called dating methods of Radiometric and Radiocarbon Dating. The “science” of deep time. ◔ ʖ̯ ◔ 

As I understand them (again, I’m no expert) is that they both use radiation as a means to determine the age of something. By measuring how much of a radioactive isotope is present in an object (mineral sample for the Radiometric method, or biomass for the Carbon Dating method) they say that they can determine the age of the thing they are looking at. Sounds great. Let’s do it!

The problems start to arise right away though, as we try to determine the age by counting the isotopes. Those smart people in the labs have some really great measuring devices that they use and I’m sure that they are very accurate too (my dad was a scientist, working in a national laboratory for 35 years). But the first problem is going to immediately hit them in the face. 

How much of the isotope was present when the rock was formed (for example)?  I mean, they can count how much is in it now, but how much was there when the mineral was formed? 

Well, this is a huge problem for the lab. They’ve got the equipment; they know how to set it up; they know how to run it to count the isotopes; but THEY DON’T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE ISOTOPE WAS PRESENT IN THE BEGINNING, WHEN THE ROCK WAS FORMED. 

All of that expensive equipment, all of that expensive training and education, and they are stuck; unable to tell us what we want to know. Why? Because no one had that equipment and training even 100 years ago, much less at the time when that sample was created (thousands of years ago). Therefore, the most accurate readings today tell us nothing of how much of that isotope was present in the past (before the equipment and the experts came along).

This is an objection that radiometric dating has been receiving since its inception. It’s not like people didn’t complain right away; they did! But the power of the purse prevails. The scam was forced upon us. And I don’t expect the enemy (Satan) to give up his precious lies that easily. He’s the one I put this on, ultimately.

But that’s only the first problem with the process; and already you can see that this is fatal to the whole endeavor. If you don’t know how much was present at the beginning, then knowing how much is present now is meaningless in a system of comparison. There’s no comparison to make—only hunches and guesses (smoke and mirrors). And they are straight up lying about it, too!

Unfortunately, they assume that the sample was initially 100% parent isotope and 0% daughter isotope. In other words, when measuring Potassium (K), turning into Argon (Ar), for example, they assume no argon was present in the sample at its creation. How do they know there wasn’t any argon in it? They don’t. (I mean, I’m pretty sure there was zero, but for different reasons.) That means that they assume total saturation, conversion, or depletion of the isotope that they are measuring (however you look at it). This is not science, guys. It’s not even a logical guess! It might, however, be a ruse to fool the populace into believing their story is true (the one without God in the mix). 

But there are at least two more fatal flaws to the process. One is the speed of decay. They assume a constant rate of change. Why do they assume that? There are forces in the world that can alter the rate of radiometric decay (speed it up). Some things, like heat or pressure (which are known to have existed everywhere), can speed up the process of decay immensely. But this is not taken into consideration. It’s as if they are doing everything they can to get the oldest reading possible, all the time. And they do, thanks to following Hutton’s failed paradigm (with bag placed firmly over head, ignoring reality in front of them); they use the algorithm.

But just the fact that outside forces are not considered into their equations tells me that their equations are meaningless. As it is, no one has any idea at all how much a sample was affected by outside forces and what that did to alter the rate of decay. Not how they’re going about it. And no one can claim what they claim with what they know (I should say, what they don’t know).

So those two unknown factors—outside forces and an unsteady rate of decay—are also enough on their own to nullify any results that might come out of such an activity. 

The lab results are in: 3 out of 3 fatal flaws reported. Radiometric data sets are completely and utterly useless to us because we don’t know the whole story behind what we can only measure today. The past has not been measured. The effects have not been accounted for.  

And that’s why we cannot trust anything that comes from a lab in determining the age of Earth using the flawed Radiometric Dating Method. It’s just smoke and mirrors.

I wonder if there’s a way to recalibrate the tools, based on the date that we have for known worldwide irradiation (1,656am)? That could be interesting to see.

Carbon Dating 

Carbon Dating is little better. It’s different because it is counting how much Carbon-14 is there, not how far one (pure) element has degraded into another (radioactive one). Other than that, it still has similar problems much of the time. This is because they make the same assumptions regarding the sample: an expected initial amount; a steady rate of decay (disappearance in this case); and no outside influences. In other words, they guess how much should be there, then measure it and subtract the difference, how do they know how much should be there? They use some kind of international reference standard (a cheat card based on algorithms, I guess). That’s where the deceit lies.

So the same problem with making assumptions is there. How much was present when the animal or plant died? What forces affected the rate of degradation? Was the rate steady or not? Extreme washing, for example, might alter a specimen quite a bit (making it look older). And there was much water in Earth’s past (a flood of it, actually).

Now, Carbon Dating is more accurate than Radiometric Dating (one element changing into another) and is only useful when the sample was a living organism, either flora or fauna. However, if someone were to try to use Carbon Dating for a rock, they would have a real problem. If the rock were supposed to be m/billions of years old, then Carbon Dating wouldn’t work anyway because carbon only lasts a few thousand years. It deteriorates very quickly, compared to minerals. (I don’t consider carbon to be a mineral. Diamonds, which carbon can be found in, can be made from coal, which is organic. Isn’t graphite—another mineral containing carbon—pretty much like coal too?) So Carbon Dating is not used for the really long times they try to find in minerals; it’s the wrong method for that (as if either is right for anything they do with it). 

Ironically, these rocks, whether sedimentary or volcanic, are only about 4,300 years old; young enough for carbon dating. The old rocks, if you’re into rock ages, are the tectonic plates and the Mantle and their crumbs (those are 6,000 years old). But everything under the continents, down to the ruptured Mantle and above the tectonic plates, is going to be 4,300 to 6,000 years old; made in the same year, out of two substances: lava and mud; or made at the creation (Mantle or Bedrock). Both rock forms (igneous and sedimentary) have signs of life, in the various forms of death: gas, oil, coal, fossils…. But yes, rock is still being made today in many volcanic parts of the world (and sea).

Anyway, Carbon Dating isn’t all that accurate. There are multiple examples on the books of it being off by a factor of hundreds of times more than the reality. And different labs can routinely get different results on the same samples. 

You see, we can know exactly how old an animal is if we see it live and die. When it dies we could then measure the C-14 in its carcass to see how accurate the method is. Sometimes it’s very close; other times it’s very off. I remember hearing that living specimens date at very old ages (dunno).

The bottom line is that Carbon Dating only works so much with biomass and not at all with minerals. The Radiometric Dating Method only could work if we had data from the earliest days of that sample’s existence. Otherwise, it is nearly useless much of the time. It is certainly useless in cosmology the way they’re using it.

Any carbon found in rock samples or fossils would automatically negate millions of years of history. 

Don’t trust Carbon Dating too far; it isn’t very reliable. It is only marginally valuable at all for dating certain “young” artifacts. It has value, but not much. It can be accurate at times, but not consistently.  And pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain, named Al Gore-Rhythm. (The gremlin is in the math.)

Instead of trusting in these lab results that tell us nothing, trust the more reliable and actually scientific methods that are available to us. And there are many. In the following chapter are just a few. Deep Time fails any real world test against it. It’s a fabrication with no scientific support.

But first I want to show you something from the Bible.

The Contrast

To illustrate the distinction between what the textbooks tell us versus what the Creator’s Bible tells us, please read the following passage and see if you can respect it:

God’s promise of entering His rest still stands, so we ought to tremble with fear that some of you might fail to experience it. For this good news—that God has prepared this rest—has been announced to us just as it was to them. But it did them no good because they didn’t share the faith of those who listened to God [and believed]. For only we who believe can enter His rest. As for the others, God said,

“In my anger I took an oath:
    ‘They will never enter my place of rest,’” 

[Psalm 95:11]

even though this rest has been ready since He made the world. We know it is ready because of the place in the Scriptures where it mentions the seventh day: 

“On the seventh day God rested from all His work.”  

[Genesis 2:2]

But in the other passage God said, “They will never enter My place of rest.”

So God’s rest is there for people to enter, but those who first heard this good news failed to enter because they disobeyed God. So God set another time for entering His rest, and that time is today. God announced this through David much later in the words already quoted:

“Today when you hear his voice,
    don’t harden your hearts.”

[Psalm 95:7-8] 

Now if Joshua had succeeded in giving them this rest, God would not have spoken about another day of rest still to come. So there is a special rest [Sabbath] still waiting for the people of God. For all who have entered into God’s rest have rested from their labors, just as God did after creating the world. So let us do our best to enter that rest. But if we disobey God, as the people of Israel did, we will fall.

For the word of God is alive and powerful. It is sharper than the sharpest two-edged sword, cutting between soul and spirit, between joint and marrow. It exposes our innermost thoughts and desires. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God. Everything is naked and exposed before His eyes, and He is the one to whom we are accountable.

So then, since we have a great High Priest who has entered heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to what we believe. This High Priest of ours understands our weaknesses, for He faced all of the same testings we do, yet He did not sin. So let us come boldly to the throne of our gracious God. There we will receive His mercy, and we will find grace to help us when we need it most. ~ 

(Author Unknown, Letter to the Hebrew followers of Christ, chapter four, Holy Bible, NLT)

So the Bible goes far beyond how the world came to be. It goes farther than just saying that there is an intelligent Creator; it introduces us to His pain of how we have jilted, jeered, and judged Him (and what we’ve done to each other). 

Misusing radiometry to hide the Creator from the picture (His picture) is sin. And it hurts His feelings—His infinite feelings. If you are a believer working in that field, you are aiding and abetting the enemy—trying to disprove the Bible’s youth for Earth.

Funny, how tiny little we can hurt great big Him. He must really be tenderhearted toward us after all. Try not to break His heart anymore than you already have. Believe in Him; not tricks devised by demons and men to pull your attention away from Him and His message. He is real. His message is real. Theirs is not.  And their math is funny; not passing the sniff test.

If you are someone who works in the field of radiometry, see what the data looks like under the lens of the timeline given here in this book and flood model. Basically, irradiation occurred about 4,300 years ago for the first time in an explosion of epic, global proportions. Then share your findings. That’s how we move forward in science: Take what works; toss what doesn’t.

PREVIOUS | NEXT

Contents
Preamble
Ch 1: Competing Worldviews
Ch 2: The Broken Planet Model
Ch 3: The Flood
Ch 4: “Earth Looks Old”
Ch 5: Radiometric Dating
Ch 6: Some Scientific Dating Methods
Ch 7: Biology
Ch 8: The Promise
Questions & Answers