D2MG@SDSUMUS (Kurt Evans) (02/09/90)
Some kinds of radioactive materials decay at a very slow rate.
This means that a certain percent of different radioactive elements
slowly turn into other elements. Carbon 14 turns into carbon 12.
Uranium turns into thorium and then into lead. Rubidium turns into
strontium.
Scientists have tried to calculate the age of fossils and rocks
by measuring the amount of these elements. They then figure out how
long it would take for the source material, carbon 14, uranium or ru-
bidium, to decay into carbon 12, thorium or lead, or strontium. This
figure gives scientists what they believe is the approximate age of
the fossil or rock being dated.
In dating the earth, scientists rely primarily on the uranium-lead
and potassium-argon methods. Dates obtained from these techniques are
based on three primary assumptions. None of these assumptions can be
scientifically proven.
(1) THE ROCK CONTAINED NO DAUGHTER PRODUCT ATOMS IN THE BEGINNING, ONLY
PARENT ATOMS. The scientific method is based on observation and exper-
imentation. Since we cannot observe or experiment with the original
rock, this assumption is non-scientific. Since daughter products are
found widely distributed in the earth's crust, it is entirely within
the realm of possibility, if not probability, that they were present
to begin with.
(2) SINCE THEN, NO PARENT OR DAUGHTER ATOMS WERE EITHER ADDED TO, OR
TAKEN FROM THE ROCK. Heating and deforming of rocks can cause migra-
tion of the daughter and parent atoms. Percolation of water through
the rocks can also cause these atoms to be transported and redeposited
elsewhere.
(3) THE RATE OF RADIOACTIVE DECAY HAS REMAINED CONSTANT. Recent re-
search suggests that exposure to neutrino, neutron, or cosmic radiation
may alter the rates of radioactive decay. Radioactive decay is also
known to be proportional to the speed of light, which some scientists,
including Barry Setterfield, believe has actually decreased. Also, we
now know that factors like heat and high electric voltages definitely
change the rate of decay of many elements.
Hawaiian lava flows, which are known to be less than 200 years
old, have been dated by the potassium-argon method at up to 3 billion
years old.
For Jesus' glory,
KurtUK3W@DKAUNI2 (Matt Will<uk3w@dkauni2>) (02/09/90)
Thank you, Kurt, for your interesting note. I have been interested in the matter of evolution vs creation for a couple of weeks, and I have been reading books from both evolutionists and creationists. One book I would like to recommend to everyone interested in the subject is written by W.J.Ouweneel, a biologist. I don't know its original title, and I don't know if it was ever published in the US, but its German title is "Evolution in der Zeitenwende", which could be translated as "evolution in a time of change". Ouweneel is a creationist who has written a lot of books concerning this subject. Just in case anybody wants to get more information on this...
MFRANCL@CC.BRYNMAWR.EDU (02/09/90)
Dear Kurt,
Since I'm new on this list - I'm not certain what prompted your
remarks about radioactive dating. I gather from a subsequent message
that it must have something to do with the age of the earth and creation
vs. evolution. You should know that while assumptions (by their very
nature) can never be scientifically proven, those made for radioactive
dating are in general known to be reasonable. Whether they can be
applied in particular instances depends upon the circumstances surrounding
an experiment. That may account for the error in the lava flow dating.
It is very important that experimental results not be taken out of
context- it can lead to serious abuses- just as it does in scripture.
Can someone explain to me just what is the difficulty anyway
with creation vs. evolution? I believe firmly that God created the
heavens and the earth - but I also believe that evolution has and is
occuring. I don't see the 2 views as being incompatible!
in the peace of Christ,
MichelleUK3W@DKAUNI2 (Matt Will<uk3w@dkauni2>) (02/13/90)
Dear Michelle,
I am not sure either how Kurt came up with his remarks on radioactive
dating, but since I have read a few things about it, I'd like to let
you know what my opinion is.
First of all, I think that there *are* problems with using radioactive
materials in trying to find the age of rocks and fossils. Most of all,
because the quantity used in an experiment is so small that it hardly
comes equal to the radioactive material present at that time, and so
the results of those experiments will also be different from reality,
if we can ever perceive it at all. Then, there are also numerous exam-
ples of grave dating errors, such as you mentioned (lava dating) and
others, too.
Concerning evolution, there are several problems to the theory, for
example: since it is a theory trying to explain everything without de-
pending on a superior intelligence or force (like a God), how would
you explain the developing of cells from 'nothing at all' (and I don't
think coincidence is a good explanation for it)?
As far as I have understood, you understand that God acted perhaps as
a driving force behind the scene (correct me if I am wrong), but how
do you match it with what the Bible tells you about creation?
The theory of creationism says that the different species have been
created at the same time. Since then, of course, there has been vari-
ation in each species, but this has at the most been some kind of
'micro-evolution'. I don't understand how, even with billions and
billions of years, evolution could have occured, from nothing to
Einstein... Anyway, if you are interested, try to read some literature
from both evolutionists and creationists, as it is always important to
view things from both sides. Keep me posted, if you want to!
Yours,
Matt