Dating Rocks is a Farce
I was recently asked by an atheist, “Were you present to see the Statue of Liberty built? Since I presume you weren't does that mean god put it there?” Often I have found that many atheists do not actually think before they ask such a question as many of them do not think through the dating of the universe, meteors, the earth, and rocks found on the earth. I am a true skeptic and I put to the test everything to see if it is absolute truth. My questioning includes for example the dating systems used to date the earth, rocks and other objects which existed prior to mankind’s observations.
There were observations from eye witnesses who saw the Statue of Liberty being planned, built, moved and placed into its current location along with documentation of its progress and process that confirms how it arrived into being. Thus today, we do not have to speculate on how it arrived into being because we have facts pointing to us when and how it came to be because it was observed as it was in progress from start to current day.
True that these facts about the Statue of Liberty come from the past when I nor most likely you were there to observe it firsthand however with a reasonable and honest research we can discover that the facts about the Statue of Liberty are indeed true. However if one does not do an honest research to discover the true story behind the Statue of Liberty (or life itself for that matter) one could be duped into believing most anything about it by someone who is devious enough to do such a thing to another person.
Naturalists are correct in stating that we can observe many things with accuracy however they are incorrect in that we can correct any flaws in dating techniques. Unlike with our observations of the earth’s revolving around the sun and the observed earth’s spin rate to which we can with a high degree of accuracy calculate time, and unlike the eye witnesses who documented the Statue of Liberty for us to know how it came to be; none of us were present to observe the beginning of time, the beginning of the universe, the beginning of the earth, the beginning of any rocks, the beginning of life, etc. Without any of us being there to observe and note what the actual conditions were, we have to speculate (guess) from what the conditions are today and extrapolate based on a theory.
Let’s just quickly look at the gaps within dating techniques main presuppositions (guesses):
1) The rate of decay has remained constant throughout the past. (constant decay rate)
2) The original amount of both mother and daughter elements is known. (original amounts known)
3) The sample has remained in a closed system. (no contamination assumed)
1) Constant Decay Rate:
For purposes of radiometric dating it must first be assumed that the rate of decay from mother element to daughter element has remained constant throughout the past. Although there is no way to prove whether or not this has been the case, scientists have attempted to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials and have found that they are “almost” immune to change. Seeing that scientists have a limited knowledge and means of being able to alter the rate of decay of radioactive materials we are left with the unknown of what could possibly change and how much could it change the rate of decay of radioactive materials that we are unaware of today.
2) Original Amounts Known:
The second assumption of geologists saying that for fact they know the exact original amounts of radioactive materials were in the rock being tested is much more speculative since there is no way to verify whether or not some (or most) of the daughter element was already present or not when the rock solidified. Therefore, a guess must be made and the guess is made to err on the side that the geologist thinks matches the date of the rock begin tested. However, in some cases, a few scientists are telling us that they have solved this problem yet there is no way to actually know as fact that this problem is solved because no scientist was around at the very beginning to observe the process and to test their theory.
3) A Closed System:
The third assumption is that the sample has remained in a closed system for all of its existence. This assumption is necessary due to outside influences such as heat and groundwater that can seriously alter the original material. In this the geologists are guessing that they can properly guess how much heat and for how long the rock being tested was exposed to and at what period of time of the rock’s existence it was exposed to it along with the same for it being exposed to water.
Seeing that the earth is not a closed system, these last two assumptions make radiometric dating highly subjective and very questionable. Given also the first assumption is not one which can be factually validated by anyone, the whole notion of dating things which existed prior to mankind being able to observe it is in doubt of any validity whatsoever. To me, that’s three strikes and the dating systems are out because there are just too many guesses being made without any proof to back them up.
Another issue with dating rocks is that sometimes the geologic periods of rocks are revised to agree with the ages computed. This also makes data about percentages of anomalies less meaningful. Also, criteria in dating a sample lies in choosing an appropriate dating method for the sample and in making sure that any rocks which show too old or too young be thrown out. Again, the geologists are guessing which rock best matches what story they want to tell with the rocks by making more assumptions which in turn cannot be verified and proved by any other means than to the processes of assumptions they made.
It seems that reasons can always be found for bad dates, especially on the geologic column. If a rock gives a too old date, one says there is excess argon. If it gives a too young date, one says that it was heated recently, or cannot hold its argon. How do we know that maybe all the rocks have excess argon? Who is to say that that rock was never heated and/or soaked in water for some amount of time within its existence? If a rock tests too young and it was found in an area that was guessed to be older then that rock’s test is thrown out… same if it was too old in an area where it was supposed to be younger.
It looks like geologists and scientists are taking the “majority view” of saying that dating techniques used equate the truth about a rock’s and the earth’s age, but looking at all the guessing going on within it, there is no way whatsoever for a geologist or scientist to actually “prove” that the age of any given rock or that the earth is the age that the dating system of choice gives as its age.
The same atheist who asked me the question about the Statue of Liberty made this statement about the dating techniques used to date rocks and the earth, “Those estimates are backed by scientific law and testable theory that is readily available for anyone to learn about.” Well, all I can say to that statement is that when it comes to testing the age of rocks, it doesn’t matter who does it nor what age the rocks are given because your guess is as good as mine which is as good as the assumptions being made by the geologists and scientists supposedly giving the age of the rocks and the earth.
There is by far more guess work placed into dating the age of rocks than I want to put my faith into thinking that dating rocks is being anywhere close to being true. I have found absolute truth and that truth has set me free to question the guesswork of people so that I can better know the truth.
Life on earth is by far too short to put your faith into guessing the age of rocks. Your life on earth should be committed to finding the absolute truth. Once you find the absolute truth, it will set you free too!
Romans 12:2
Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God's will is—his good, pleasing and perfect will.
——————————————————————-
http://noanswersingenesis.org.au/mt_st_helens_dacite_kh.htm
http://www.trueorigin.org/dating.asp
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens211/radiometric_dating.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/AgeEarth.html
Primary References
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-radiometric-dating-prove
indy.freethinker Yes, that makes as much sense as anything in dating rocks.
I dated a rock once. Just laid there. Nothing.