Geological Dating Discovered To Be Flawed

Last month, a special interest group know as NCSE went after creation geologists referring to them as people who interfere or meddles in the affairs of geology. One of the projects that creation geologists took on was called, “RATE” (Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth) which took eight years to accomplish. It challenged the very idea of the earth being billions of years old while being able to scientifically verify (proving the Bible to be correct) that the Earth was much younger! Other criticisms of geological dating included consistency over a vast period of time.

Opposition emerged and one of the sources was a man by the named of Greg Neyman from Answers in Creation who attempted to create a straw man, accusing creation scientists of being deceptive because the research was deemed good enough for peer-review publications.  Greg then says, “The methods used by the RATE theorists in this research need to be questioned” or in other words come up with a straw man’s argument. This wasn’t about where the evidence lead in Greg’s article as far as the research was concerned but who was able to present it.

Like many arguments in evolution, over a period of time it eventually gets falsified causing a variety of more complexity in the explanation. Geological dating is not immune from such falsifications as we shall see momentarily. For many years the undisputed champion with secular scientists has been microscopic crystals known as, “zircons” which are used for finding out how old the rock strata is. The method with the use of certain assumptions was very favorable to the idea the earth was billions of years old rather than thousands.

It is has been recently discovered that zircons on the inside appear to be vastly different in age! Confirming what creation scientists have been saying for many years and along with RATE research, “Earth’s ‘Time Capsules’ May Be FlawedScience magazine declares!

“Found in rocks throughout Earth’s crust, zircons are some of the oldest bits of mineral on Earth. These tiny crystals are so durable—and some are so ancient, dating to just 150 million years or so after our world formed—that geologists have long viewed the tiny bits of minerals embedded within them as a kind of time capsule, offering a peek at conditions on the early Earth. But a new study suggests that these so-called inclusions are not as pristine as scientists thought, raising doubts about conclusions that researchers have drawn from them, from the rise of early oceans to the movements of the ancient continents.”

About 7,000 zircons thought to be 2.6 to 3 billion years old came out to be 800 million years old. While this in itself doesn’t prove how old the earth actually is, but it does demonstrate the fact that zircons are not protected from outside influence as previously thought by secular geologists but confirms creationists view on the matter.

“In recent years, some researchers have used analyses of zircons and their inclusions—and in particular, the temperatures and pressures they’ve been exposed to since their formation—to infer the presence of oceans or of modern-style plate tectonics on Earth more than 4 billion years ago, well before previously suspected, Rasmussen says. But based on the team’s new findings, which will be reported next month in Geology, those conclusions are suspect, he notes.”

Over the years, secular geologists have had a method that assumed their own timeline, and tossing out any anomalies but new research is making it harder for them to do that this time.  Even disagreeing with creationists about the anomalies, they should have taken them more seriously instead of clinging to their own dogma that eventually bites them in the foot. The discovery for creationists is very exiting, and its great to see science improving in this area!

About these ads

8 thoughts on “Geological Dating Discovered To Be Flawed

  1. Oh, the NCSE is a ‘special interest group’ ?
    It is actually a national organization … and well known too. Of course good education is special. Perhaps even so in the US, Michael ?

    And Michael: radiotopic dating is by no means the only way to estimate the age of the Earth. The age of the Earth is not an idea, as you put it, but a measurement.

  2. To many misconceptions here to deal with them all but maybe most important is that the RATE project actually came to the conclusion that many radioactive methods are, in fact, consistent with each other. As a result the strategy they have not put into place to deny the conclusion of an old earth is to question the the constancy of physical laws over time and to lead many toward an appearance of age position like Rev. Al Mohler recently proclaimed. Even in RATES conclusions questions about inconsistencies in zircon dating would not lead directly to a young earth just questions about whether the earth were 2, 3 or 4 billion years old and thus the need for apparent built in age of decay products. Questioning on method and finding a problem does not logically lead to the conclusion of a young earth however finding multiple methods that suggest an old earth does strongly deny a young earth even if those methods are inconclusive as the exactly how old.

  3. @Michael,

    Opposition emerged and one of the sources was a man by the named of Greg Neyman from Answers in Creation who attempted to create a straw man, accusing creation scientists of being deceptive because the research was deemed good enough for peer-review publications. Greg then says, “The methods used by the RATE theorists in this research need to be questioned” or in other words come up with a straw man’s argument. This wasn’t about where the evidence lead in Greg’s article as far as the research was concerned but who was able to present it.

    The irony of this is that RATE makes it’s own arguments against strawmen claims that no geologist nor any scientist who works with dating methods use. –Go figure, Greg Neyman is a Geologist, and he knows much more about it than any YEC. But how is his claim that RATE’s methodology needs to be questioned a “strawman?” Michael, do you even know what a strawman is? Apparently not.

    Last month, a special interest group know as NCSE went after creation geologists referring to them as people who interfere or meddles in the affairs of geology.

    The NCSE is a special intrest group? Well so is Answers in Genesis, Creation Ministries International, The Institute for Creation Research, etc, etc, etc.

  4. Wow..and I just remembered why I have not commented here so much in the last month..It’s because…Michael, don’t take this personally, but your posts are dull.

  5. Over the years, secular geologists have had a method that assumed their own timeline, and tossing out any anomalies but new research is making it harder for them to do that this time.

    Scientist do not “toss out” anomalies. It is creationists who toss out everything except (favorable) anomalies.

    In this case, we have a huge number of observations from many independent lines of inquiry showing that the earth is not only older than creationism permits, but a million times older. Radio-isotope dating by K-Ar and 3-daughters methods. Erosion rates of rocks and minerals. Plate tectonics and continental drift. Even annual ice rings in glaciers can be counted by eye up to 700,000 years.

    Even what Michael counts an an “anomaly” falsifies his young-earth scenario. He crows that the zircons may not be 4 billion years old as previously thought. So what is the minimum new estimate for their age? Wow—only 800 million years! Sorry, Michael; this is still 100,000 times greater than the maximum age claimed by creationism. There is no other theory of anything that would claim it is vindicated by reducing its observed error from 1,000,000 to 100,000.

    Desperate.

    Michael argues that discovering one anomaly ought to throw out an entire theory. Being an ignoramus in science, he probably does not know that C14 dating encountered a similar anomaly a few years ago. Creationists hopped on some sea shells dated at 28,000 years, when other evidence showed that they were less than 7,000 years. This led to discovery of the “storage effect” in which these organism processed carbon in their mineral parts in a way different from soft tissue and bone. So the purported anomaly was not only explained, but led to a more accurate method of C14 dating.

    This is characteristic of creationism. First, creationists do not perform any research; they merely hijack the results of scientists which may fit their theory.[1] Creationists did not discover any problem with zircons—in fact they had not a clue. I have not seen any creationist writing that proposed any particular reason why the original age of zircons might not be correct.

    The cited Science article proposes several reasons for the age error, and discusses methods for researching how the error came to exist. Creationists, on the other hand, do not propose to investigate the matter further.

    This is one of the chief differences between science and creationism. Science always investigates, and its results offer guides for further inquiry. Creationism is content to rest upon a result that favors its cause: further knowledge is not only undesired, it is impossible.

    ==============

    [1] There is an incentive for creationists not to conduct research. The odds are 100 to 1 that the results will disconfirm their theory. Why take the chance? Why indeed.

  6. Wow..and I just remembered why I have not commented here so much in the last month..It’s because…Michael, don’t take this personally, but your posts are dull.

    How true. And repetitious. The previous post, “Embryonic Stem Cells Loose [sic] Steam: Adult Stem Cells Gain,” [1] was a total rehash of several earlier posts on this subject. It made no effort to counter opposing arguments in favor of ES cells, and entirely misrepresents the state of research in this area.[2]

    We find in this post similar repetitions of claims that have been thoroughly debunked, and misrepresentations of scientific research. The ICR article that Michael cites is at least a decade old[3] Creationists seem to think that if they throw enough dung against the wall, some of it might stick. Regardless how old and fetid it is.

    But repetition is necessary to their cause. The lack of results that are even consistent with a young earth requires that old material be recycled. And they can’t include any new arguments, because there are no new arguments. And they must ignore refutations, because they cannot counter them.

    ================
    [1] So what exactly is “loose” steam? Low-pressure steam? Uncaged steam? Michael can’t even master the English language, much less science.

    [2] Including the objection that ES cells are needed in research on adult stem cells. As noted previously, prohibitions against using ES cells would also bring 85% of the work being done on adult cells to a dead halt. Michael totally ignores this.

    [3] It is interesting to note that the ICR includes no dates on any of its papers, thus misleading readers into believing that they are current. In fact, internal evidence in this article shows it to be at least a decade old. Whereas the refutations of RATE are much more current. An ASA refutation, for example, was updated in May 2009. But of course dishonesty is the default position of creationists.

  7. Michael, don’t take this personally, but your posts are dull.

    Apparently very few people consider Michael’s posts non-boring.
    He can’t even seem to raise much interest among those who agree with him. The majority of posts state “Be the first to like this post.” Glenn absent-mindedly pushes the “like” button every once in a while. Lance a couple of times. Self-professed Bulgarian journalist kotev1000 once.

    Many popular bloggers advertise their readership numbers. Michael refuses even to make his stats available when requested.

    .

    So why do I continue to comment? First, Michael does sometimes cite scientific advances that I had missed, and it’s interesting to look them up and find out what they actually do say. Second, refuting his points leads me to dig into them and figure out specifically how and why he is so wrong. It is especially nice to be able to show that even his grasp of the principles of creationism is tenuous. (As in his ignorance of the reason why creationists hate dark matter.) Third, a few casual readers have changed their minds and seen the inherent fraud of creationism. (Conversely, Michael has not seemed to convince any initial non-believers at all.)

    So the post are fun, in a perverse sort of way.

  8. Olorin: “So the post are fun, in a perverse sort of way.”

    That’s it ! We must be perverse to keep reading and commenting on Michael’s outpourings …

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s