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 sample 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 and they can measure the rate, 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, for example. [face plant] 

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, or very little, 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). 

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. 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, kids. 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 other 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, formula, or chart. But really, the decay rate assumption isn’t even the core of the problem.

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. 

In actuality, according to my model, which no one has ever conceived of, apparently, I can show that irradiation occurred at a specific point of time in the recent past. According to my model, radiation was introduced for the first time in a huge amount from the Core of the Earth 4,300 years ago. Before this event, all radiation came from solar or cosmic sources, not the Earth itself! Leaving this out of the equation is why the dating results today are so far off from reality. It isn’t just that the methods have flaws, it is that no one has accounted for massive irradiation at a single point in time (the recent past). It’s like coming upon a pile of walnuts under walnut trees and assuming that all those nuts fell a few at a time over a period of time. What they don’t have is the backstory that someone came along and dumped that pile at one time, which makes their assumption not just off, but very off. If it took someone a few minutes to drop of that huge pile of nuts, then saying that they all fell there over a long period of time at the current rate of nut droppgage from the trees is just wrong. Do you see how radiometric dating is completely off now? It isn’t that the measurements are bad (so much, even though they are), the real problem is the assumption of a wrong backstory.

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.  The cause of the overwhelming majority of radiation has not been recognized. Although I can now tell you that it was from the introduction of radioactive lava onto the surface from deep within the Earth.

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. The problem has less to do with the processes and more to do with the backstory used. They assume that the current measurable rate of decay has been happening from the time before time. They do not know that there was an event that placed an enormous amount of radiation into the world in one massive dump.

To really drive this home for you, here is the bottom line to all of this talk of radiometric decay dating: They can measure how much radiation comes to our planet from the Sun and space, called solar and cosmic radiation. They can measure the rate of decay from one element to another, using multiple methods and processes (and all of them tell the same story). What they do NOT know is that the world’s radiation came to us (primarily) from a one-time, inimitable event of a massive irradiation of all life and matter about 4,300 years ago. That introduction of radiation on a massive scale is not accounted for because no one had my model before now.

It isn’t their fault, really. I know I come down hard on them and maybe too hard, sorry for that. But I am so frustrated by their continual insistence on getting God out of the picture at literally every turn that I have a very difficult time being patient with their ignorance and attitude. In all fairness though, their ignorance is of a backstory that they have not had access to, ever. And ignorance means not having the data; it is not a statement regarding intent or intelligence (at all). My own IQ is nothing to brag about, really!

So can you see that the methods and equipment and even the people are not to blame for the gargantuan error, called radiometric dating? The problem is due to not knowing how it all happened in the first place. My model has that explanation, for the first time in our history (to my knowledge).

If they could bring themselves to admit that it is possible for a massive influx or dump of radiation to have occurred at the Flood of Noah, then perhaps they could get on track and jump off of the slow train of uniformitarianism and onto the high speed train of catastrophism. They’ll get farther quicker that way.

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 much of the problem 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 loss? Was the rate steady or not? Extreme washing, for example, might alter a specimen quite a bit (making it look older by washing carbon away). And there was much water in Earth’s past (a whole, worldwide 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 carbon-based materials, whether associated with sedimentary or volcanic rock, are only about 4,300 years old; young enough for carbon dating. The older 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 that makes up the continents, atop the ruptured Mantle and above the Tectonic Plates, is going to be 4,300 years old or newer, made during or since the Flood, out of two substances: lava and/or mud. The 6,000 year-old rocks that make up the Tectonic Plates and the Mantle were made at the creation. Both continental rock forms (igneous and sedimentary) have signs of life, in various forms, caused by the cooking of formerly living things into gas, oil, coal, or fossils, and were deposited at the Flood. But yes, rock is still being made today in many volcanic parts of the earth and sea. If we go to Iceland, we can find rocks that are days old, or being made today! If we swim down to the bottom of the ocean where sea floor spreading is happening, we can see rocks being formed there too.

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). Contamination of the sample is likely the biggest factor of the discrepancies.

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 (or maybe take into account my model). 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 for that rock. 

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 a horrible backstory that does not support the science.

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

The Contrast

To illustrate the distinction between what the textbooks tell us about life versus what the Creator’s Bible tells us, please read the following passage and see if you can respect it. This is not about science; it’s about life in general.

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. And I guarantee that my model works!

Questions:

1. Is the main problem with radiometric dating in the measurements or the initial amounts of radiation?
2. True or False: The irradiation of Earth was a one-time, inimitable event.
3. True or False: Radiometric Dating, used for minerals, counts isotopes and attempts to calculate how long they have been morphing from one element to another.
4. True or False: Carbon-14 dating attempts to count the number of carbon-14 atoms present and then guess how long it’s been since the organism quit taking in C14.

Answers:

1. The main problem is the backstory—not realizing that the irradiation occurred in a single, short-lived event 4,300 years ago. Measuring the rate now is moot.
2. True. In the Flood, massive amounts of radiation came up from the Mantle of Earth onto the surface.
3. True. It is about measuring the ratio between two isotopes.
4. True. It is about measuring how much C14 was taken in while the organism lived, then making a calculation.

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