Tag: Creation science

September 16, 2019March 2, 2024

The Fallacy of Radiometric Dating

photo credit: nasa.gov

creationsciences.com

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

Contrary to what you may be thinking, radiometric dating is not the latest romantic hookup site. Radiometric dating is a method that dates rocks and other objects by using the known decay rate of radioactive isotopes. The rate at which these substances decay is known as radioactive decay. This is the process that allows an unstable atomic nucleus to lose energy by releasing radiation. I should point out at this point that one of the basic assumptions in the radiometric dating theory is that radioactive elements will decay at a constant rate. This is a very important and extreme assumption since this theory is being relied upon to date items that are billions of years old.

Klyuchevskaya Volcano – photo credit: nasa.gov

The earth is constantly changing with volcanoes erupting and exploding causing disruptive changes to the earth, massive forest fires create barren land subject to erosion, earthquakes make major changes to the earth’s surface, as well as tsunamis, tornados, hurricanes, etc. This is not exemplary of a stable planet.

Thejerusalemgiftshop.com - Discover Christian Gifts from the Holy Land

To assume that radioactive decay has not changed over the last 4.5 billions (their estimate) does not seem reasonable. Think about the changes that have occurred just during our lifetimes. It just doesn’t seem reasonable or logical that radioactive decay would undergo no changes during such a long period of time.

breast cancer cells – photo credit: nasa.gov

The 2002 Oregon Biscuit Fire
photo credit: NASA/GSFC/METI/
ERSDAC/JAROS, and U.S./Japan
ASTER Science Team

Also, think about the changes that have supposedly occurred with regards to living organisms in the 4.54 billion years we are told the earth has existed. Evolution tells us that somehow a single cell organism formed (magically) and somehow miraculously transformed into a human being over that time period.

Talk about things changing. Therefore, it doesn’t seem to be a reasonable assumption to assume that radioactive decay occurs at a constant rate without changing over those billions of years. We’ve been told to believe the miraculous appearance of a single celled organism turned into a human being, but radioactive decay has remained pristine with no changes through evolution or natural changes over time. All matter that has been studied has been exposed to the elements which over supposed billions of years would make changes to the matter.

For some reason many scientifically trained people use radiometric dating to date items. I cannot understand why any person of science would think that this dating method is a valid method of estimating the age of anything.

First of all you may be thinking, why would someone like me with no scientific training venture into offering my opinion on such a highly scientific methodology. In defense of my reason for thinking I have the right to comment on this complex scientific topic, I will provide my logic and reasoning.

It’s true that I don’t have training or experience in this complex scientific methods of theoretically dating items. However, any methodology that uses complex scientific processes, if it is to be accepted as fact, must be logical and capable of being proven using the scientific method. Even if lay people don’t understand the details of the process, they certainly can understand the reasoning and logic behind the complex scientific process. For example, a lay person may not understand the details about why someone’s heart is not functioning properly and the details that are involved in how a heart transplant is accomplished. However, a lay person can certainly understand that a person’s heart is not working correctly and that the patient will need a new heart or the patient will die. Simply because a lay person cannot diagnose a defective heart or be able to put a new heart into that prospective transplant recipient, that lay person certainly can understand what is wrong and what needs to be done to correct the condition. That lay person would certainly know that putting a defective heart in the above referenced patient would be disastrous. That lay person would also be able to know that the new heart would have to be compatible with the transplant recipient. One would not have to be an expert, a doctor, or scientifically trained in any area of medicine to know these things or to be able to use logic and reason to come to these conclusions.

Having established that lay people can come to reasoned conclusions about complex scientific theories and analyses, it’s time to turn our attention to the theoretical science in question namely radiometric dating and electromagnetic radiation.

The MAP instrument consists
of a set of passively cooled
microwave radiometers with
1.4x 1.6-meter diameter
primary reflectors to provide
the desired angular resolution.
photo credit: nasa.gov

“radiometer” is an instrument that measures electromagnetic radiation. Isotopes are variants of a chemical element that have the same number of protons in the nucleus and also have the same atomic number as each other. However, each of the variant isotopes have a different number of neutrons in the nucleus. There are over 800 radioactive isotopes.

It is common for geologists to use radiometric dating to estimate the age of elements through the use of carbon-14 and nitrogen-14. They use the natural radioactive decay of these elements to arrive at the age of Fossils. Also, for the age of the earth it is common for scientists to use isotopes potassium-40 and argon-40.

I have no problem with the rationale or the science behind this methodology of determining how long it takes for a particular isotope to decay as long as one assumes the rate of decay has not changed over billions of years. The problem I have is that the rate of decay over billions of years and therefore, the years it may take for the isotope to deteriorate is unknown and is not capable of being known and therefore, has nothing to do with how long the earth has existed. Think logically, if an isotope decays at a half-life rate of 1.3 billion years, how does that in any way have anything to do with how long that element has existed. That radioactive isotope could have been created 6,000 to 14,000 years ago and still have a half-life of 1.3 billion years, if it was created with a half-life of 1.3 billion years. How would that fact prove or disprove how old the earth is? If God created certain isotopes with half-lives of 1.3 billion years or 10.5 million years has nothing to do with how old these isotopes are. For purposes known only to God, I believe He chose to give those isotopes those half-lives. In order for this type of age-dating to have any validity, you would have to first know the age of the earth. Radiometric dating can only tell you how long it will take for a particular substance to decay providing nothing changes over long, long periods of time. Something could easily intervene that might change its radioactive properties. Using radiometric dating to estimate the age of the earth assumes that the isotopes being studied were very large at their creation and have been decaying at an established rate of decay. I understand it is not quite that simple as isotopes change into other isotopes as they decay. Taking all this into account, still does not provide anything other than an interesting theory as to the age of anything. Ultimately, knowing decay rates does not tell a researcher what may have happened during billions of years or how large the item being researched was when it was created.

21 April 1972 – Astronaut John W. Young, commander of the Apollo 16 lunar landing mission
photo credit: nasa.gov

I think anyone with a reasonable amount of intelligence can understand why radiometric dating is not a reliable indication of when the earth or universe came into existence. To review, in order to determine the age of the earth and it’s components or the universe using radiometric dating, you first must know when the item being studied was created or how large it was at the time of its creation and that there were no changes to the properties of the items being studied. It is not possible to study existing decaying isotopes and based on that analysis be able to go backwards in time to arrive at when they came into existence. You can estimate any number you want, but you can’t, with any confidence, state it is a fact. Remember, one of the main assumptions of this dating method is that the rate of radioactive decay must remain constant over 4.5 billion years. Experts can theorize that they “believe” they are correct. However, just because those experts are able to calculate consistent mathematical results does not prove that the calculations or results have any relevance to reality or the unknown ages being sought. Having a PHD and wearing a white lab coat does not insulate people from being wrong in their reasoning, assumptions, and logic. Anybody who has been involved with accounting understands how you can have assets equal liabilities, but if the numbers aren’t representative of reality, the reports that are produced are meaningless.

Disclosure: This website contains quick links to affiliates. If you follow a link on this website and purchase something, we will in most instances, receive a small commission which will not increase the cost of the purchase. The merchant links presented on this site will help ensure I can continue shedding light on important topics. The blogs that I do are a result of compiling information gathered from sources considered reliable and of course the Bible which is totally reliable.
Thank you.

August 15, 2019March 2, 2024

What is Science anyway?

photo credit: nasa.gov

creationsciences.com

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

One of the first things that has to be discussed is the word “science.” I don’t think there is any room for anyone misunderstanding as to what the word “creation” means. However, the word science seems to cause much more difficulty for the average person when it comes to understanding.

Therefore, it makes sense to first go to the dictionary for the definition of this much abused word Science.
The Science Council provides the quality assurance system for those working in science throughout the European Union. They set the standards for professional registration for practicing scientists and science technicians across all scientific disciplines. Through their Licensed Bodies they admit to their registered scientists and science technicians who meet their competence and conduct requirements and commit to Continuing Professional Development. Those scientists who reach the required standards are recognized by the following designations CSci, RSci, CSciTeach, and RSciTech. (The Science Council is the competent authority of the European Union.)
The Science Council defines Science as:

”Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence:

Scientific methodology includes the following:

Objective observation.
Measurement and data
(possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool)
Evidence
Experiment
and / or observation as benchmarks for testing hypotheses
Induction:
reasoning to establish general rules or conclusions drawn from facts or examples
Repetition
Critical Analysis
Verification and Testing:
critical exposure to scrutiny, peer review and assessment”

The definition of the noun science from the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary: “knowledge about the structure and behaviour of the natural and physical world, based on facts that, for example, you can prove by experiments.”

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines Science as:

“knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world.”

”The word ‘science’ has its root in the Latin word ‘scientia.’ This is “knowledge based on
demonstrable
and
reproducible
data.”

In keeping with this definition, science must have measurable results using testing and analysis.”

Science is based on facts, not our opinions and preferences. The whole concept of science has been developed to challenge unproven ideas through research.

According to the website livescience.com, “the steps of the scientific method go something like this:

Make an observation or observations
Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
Form a hypothesis
a tentative description of what’s been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
Analyze the data and draw conclusions;
accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory.

“Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method, Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science.“

Based on the above definitions of science, it’s obvious for something to be claimed as “scientific” it must be proven using established principles, procedures, and is capable of being proven through use of the “Scientific Method.” Observing the steps in the scientific method it becomes very clear that there are established procedures that must be followed for a theory to move from theory to scientific fact. Simply because a theory can be made to “seem” reasonable or be the best “explanation” available does not qualify that theory to be called “scientific fact! Making some assumptions and then performing mathematical calculations based on those assumptions does not “prove” anything. It merely goes to show that the researchers or scientists are able to competently perform math calculations. The important point is that the scientific assumptions, calculations, and results must be observed and can be shown to actually result in what is hypothesized. Accurate mathematics do not equate to scientific proof.

July 24, 2019March 2, 2024

In The Beginning

photo credit: nasa.gov

creationsciences.com

Short, quick, logical reads
with meaningful content.

According to the Bible, God created the universe and everything in it. What’s also amazing is that He did it in six days resting on the seventh day. So you may be asking yourself what this has to do with science since I’m talking about the Bible and science deals with hard core scientific facts. In order to answer that question, we have to first deal with what are scientific facts and what are mere speculations about scientific facts. Also, it’s important to remember this website’s name:

creationsciences.com

As the name implies, there are many sciences that help to explain what exists. These sciences include astronomy, geology, mineralogy, chemistry, physiology and biology to name some. It needs to be understood that science cannot prove or disprove how the universe was created (or just “happened” as some believe). The reason for this of course is that there is no way to establish such a truth scientifically. In order to prove to everyone where the universe came from would require authoritative eyewitnesses to testify about its beginning.

Obviously, human witnesses are not available, but the true and living God was present since it was He who created it. Unfortunately, you have to believe in Him if you are going to accept His Word that He created the universe. As a result, many people will not accept God’s Word that He did it so numerous tiny factlets that science provides us must be used to help convince unbelievers. Even unbelievers must ultimately accept the fact that their belief as to how the universe was created is just that “their belief.” Even unbelievers in God must accept the fact that there had to be a “first cause.” However, if they want to accept the belief that matter has always existed I suppose that may overcome the first cause issue in the same way that believers in God believe that He has always existed. In fact believers in God believe that not only has He always existed, they believe He created “time” as well as the universe. Along the same line of reasoning, unbelievers must also believe that “time” has always existed. Again, just as the unbelievers must take by faith that “matter” has always existed they must take by faith that “time” has always existed. Unbelievers certainly must exhibit a great deal of faith to maintain their beliefs.

The Secular Humanist religion is a strong proponent of the theory of Evolution. Just to clarify, the Secular Humanist religion is the belief that there is no God and that man (a term which includes women) is god. It believes that man is in control and if anything can or will be done it is as a result of man. Somehow this religion permeates life on planet earth and by some it is not even considered a religion. Of course it clearly is a religion with religious viewpoints and faithful followers.

So, just what is the Theory of Evolution? It is the theory that matter and time always existed and somehow all this matter exploded and as a result of that explosion much of that matter is still zooming out into space and formed everything you see out there. Mankind (both male and female) came from a mixture of water and lightening that also already existed and somehow caused life to come into existence.

So we basically have two diametrically opposed theories that explain how what we see around us came into existence. Future blogs will focus on what science has to say about these theories and the creation in general. I will try not to get bogged down in the minutia but will try to keep future discussions as straight forward as possible and get to the point quickly.