Radiometric Dating

Its important to be reminded that, though many things many be measured on a rock whose origin has not been observed (size, weight, mass, composition, density, etc), age is not one of them. Therefore, to call radiometric dating an absolute dating method (which many textbooks do) is misleading. As we shall see, all radiometric dating consists of, in reality, is a study of the elemental composition of a particular specimen. Age is determined when certain assumptions are applied to these compositional findings. Note that these assumptions, all of them, are unproven and unprovable.

Authur N. Strahler, a committed anti-creationist, explains the concept behind radiometric dating ("Principles of Earth Science", 1976, p. 23, 68):

"A key to the understanding of radioactivity is that isotopes are unstable. This instability can result in the flying off of a small part of the nucleus. The original element is thus transformed into a different element, having a different name. In this spontaneous breakdown, mass is converted into energy, released into the surrounding matter and finally transformed into sensible heat. The term radioactive decay covers the entire process…At the time of solidification of an igneous rock from its liquid state, minute amounts of minerals containing radioactive isotopes are trapped within the crystal lattices of the common rock-forming minerals, in some cases, forming distinctive radioactive minerals. At this initial point in time there are present none of the stable daughter products of that constitute that end of the decay series. However, as time passes the stable end member of each series is produced at a constant rate and accumulates in place.

Each radioactive isotope has its own rate of decay, which is absolutely constant….Knowing the half-life if the decay system, we can estimate closely the time elapsed since mineral crystallization occurred. An accurate chemical determination of the ratio between the radioactive isotope and the stable daughter product must be made. A fairly simple mathematical equation is used to derive the age in years of the mineral under analysis."

At first blush, the methodology being applied seems scientifically sound. Under closer inspection, the problems with this form of "absolute" dating become apparent.

To begin with, its important to acknowledge that no one really understands just why isotopes decay in the first place.

From William D. Stansfield, Science of Evolution", 1977, p. 82:

"For some inexplicable reason, the nuclei of certain elements becomes unstable and spontaneously release energy and/ or particles."

Not knowing for certain why this process happens ought to make a thinking person leery about using radiometric dating a reliable method for peering into the distant past. For certain, one ought to think twice before hanging their eternity on a method based on a physical process whose fundamental nature is not fully understood.

David Harry Grinspoon has taken such a bold (I would say foolish) approach. An ardent anti-creationist, Grinspoon has used the radiometric dating method as proof positive that the Bible is errant (see: "Venus Revealed", 1997). A lot of people share Grinspoon's opinion that radiometric dating has safely proven the Bible wrong. The following data will hopefully help you make up your own mind.

Types of Radiometric Dating Methods

The Chart below outlines some of the most common forms of "absolute dating" and the basic premise behind each:

Problems with the Underlying Assumptions

As noted, all radiometric dating boils down to essentially are a chemical analysis of a particular sample's composition. The assumptions that need to be made in order to take these results and use them as a dating method are unproven and unprovable. These are outlined below:

Points c-d Expanded:

Has the Decay Rate Been Constant?

"The deviations [in decay rate] are a function of the environment…we are each convinced that the thesis of 'decay independence' and the thesis of 'decay constancy' needs considerable revision and reexamination …at a minimum, an unreliability factor must be incorporated into the age dating calculations." J. Anderson and G. Spangler, "Radiometric Dating: Is the 'Decay Constant' Constant?" in Pensee, Fall, 1974, p. 34.

"His [Joly's] suggestion of varying rate of disintegration of uranium at various geological periods would, if correct, set aside all possibilities of age calculation by radioactive methods." A.F. Kovarik, "Calculating the Age of Minerals from Radioactivity Data and Principles," in Bulletin 80 of the National Research Council, June 1931, p. 107.

Virtually every textbook, which deals with the subject of radiometric dating, states as a matter of fact that the rate of isotopic decay has remained constant throughout earth's entire history. John Morris ("The Young Earth", 2000, p. 52) admits that scientists have tried to encourage a change in the decay rates of isotopes used in the radiometric dating method with little, or at best, inconclusive results. He states,

"There are a few clues in nature that, perhaps, the decay rate has changed in the past, but these are subject to a variety of interpretations, and as of yet, have not convincingly established a changing decay rate." Morris cites this reference, "See for example the report in "Science News", 8 Jan. 1994, p. 16, where the half-life of tritium was altered by about 30%"

A New Cosmological Model Would be Needed

Many have argued against a the idea that the decay rates of isotopes have changed, simply because of the fact that to alter one "constant", (in this case, the rate of isotopic decay) would mean a corresponding alteration in many "constants", since many appear to be inextricably interwoven.

What the Decay Rate is Proportionate To

According to the "McGraw Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technical Terms", the Geiger-Nuttal Rule is:

"The rule that the logarithm of the decay constant of an alpha emitter is linearly related to the logarithm of the range of the alpha particle emitted by it."

An alpha particle is defined as:

"A positively charged particle consisting of two protons and two neutrons identical to the nucleus of the helium atom; emitted by several radioactive substances."

Simply put, the energy contained in the emitted particle (due to isotopic decay) is related to that isotope's decay rate.

Decay Rate and the Speed of Light (c)

According to Einstein's theory of relativity, energy (E) and the speed of light (c), belong at opposite sides of the equation:

E=MC²

Energy (E) equals mass (M) times the speed of light (C) squared.

Theodore W. Rybka, Ph.D. (see The Institute for Creation research website www.icr.org, Impact Article No. 106: "Consequences of Time Dependent Nuclear Decay Indices on Half Lives", 1982) stated:

"Some investigators claim that that there appears to be some experimental evidence that the speed of light decreased in the past although the speed of light is constant at the present time. If this is true they argue in the following manner. The energy of emitted particles from the nucleus as related to the velocity of light through the relativistic expression for kinetic energy and the half life of a radioactive atom is related to the energy of the ejected particle by means of the empirical relation called the Geiger-Nuttal Law. Through these relations we can deduce that if the speed of light is slowing down, then the radioactive decay rate is also slowing down."

Walt Brown also sees a relationship between the speed of light and isotopic decay. ("In the Beginning 7^th Ed., p. 237):

"If c [the speed of light] has decreased (using the orbital time standard), neither length, electrical charge, nor temperature standards would change. Therefore, chemical and nuclear reactions would not change. However, the speed of chemical and nuclear reactions would change, because the vibrational frequencies of atoms and nuclei would change. Also, radioactive decay rates, which depend on the vibrational frequency of the nucleus, would decrease if c decreased."

According to astronomer Barry Setterfield, evidence indicated that the universe is not expanding, as many believe, but that it has already expanded. This is described in the Bible as "stretching out the heavens" (see Jeremiah 10:12, Job 9:8, Isaiah 40:22, 42:5). After this stretching, an enormous amount of potential energy has been steadily flooding into the universe from its very fabric, and according to Setterfield, this influx can be detected. This influx is causing the introduction of virtual particles (flucuations between mass and energy) which is hindering light's travel from point A to point B through the cosmos (like light passing through a glass, light is first absorbed by the glass and then re-emitted on the other side. It seem instantaneous to us, but it does take some time. Virtual particles, it is theorized, are having the same effect on light).

My question for Mr. Setterfield (sent Feb. 18, 2004) was how in the world could an influx of energy to atoms actually translate to a longer half life? His response was:

"The answer emerges from the fact that not only is the speed of light affected by the strength of the ZPE [zero point energy - that energy being released from the fabric of space], but atomic particles also increase in mass as the energy from the vacuum becomes available. The greater the mass of atomic particles means that the particles in the nucleus and the electrons in their orbits travel more slowly as the kinetic energy of the particles is constant. Thus atomic masses are proportional to 1/^2, so that atomic velocities are proportional to c[the speed of light]. Consequently, the rate of ticking of the atomic clock is also proportional to c. This includes the rate of movement of particles in the nucleus and hence the rate of radioactive decay. Therefore, decay rates are proportional to c and decline as the ZPE increases as because atomic masses increase as the ZPE increases."

Evidences for a Decaying Light Speed

a. Historic Measurements - Walt Brown states ("In the Beginning 7^th Ed., p. 232):

"During the past 300 years, at lest 164 separate measurements of the speed of light have been published. Sixteen different measurement techniques were used. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia has studied these measurements, especially their precision and experimental errors (see:Trevor Norman and Barry Setterfield, "The Atomic Constants, Light and Time"). His results show that the speed of light has apparently decreased so rapidly that experimental error cannot explain it. In the seven instances where the same scientists measured the speed of light with the same equipment years later, a decrease was always reported. The decreases were often several times greater than the reported experimental errors."

b. The Redshift - Starlight from distant stars and galaxies appears to be "red shifted". Many have interpreted this as a strange recessional velocity effect (that is, as stars move away from us, space itself is being stretching, thus lengthening the emitted waves of light, thereby causing the light to appear redder).

Since 1976, William G. Tifft, an astronomer from Arizona has found that the redshifts from distant stars and galaxies appear to differ by only a few, small amounts (see: William G. Tift, "Properties of the Redshift III Temporal Variation", The Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 382, 1 December, 1991, pp. 396-415).

Tift's findings make it hard to believe that what is being observed is a recessional velocity effect (it would be as though stars could only travel at certain, fixed speeds, abruptly jumping from one speed to another).

It should be noted that all light (in this case, specifically red-shifted light) has its origin at the atomic level. The quantization of red-shifts does not prove that light speed has slowed down. The red shift is, however, predicted by Setterfield (and others) who theorize that a massive amount of potential energy is being released into the universe from the "fabric" of space.

c. Atomic Clocks Apparently Slowing Relative to Orbital Clocks - Before 1967, one second of time was defined by international agreement as 1/31,556925.9747 of the time it takes Earth orbit the sun. In 1967, a second was redefined as 9,192,631,770 oscillations of the cesium-133 atom.

T.C. Van Flandern, working at the U.S. Naval Observatory, found that atomic clocks appear to be slowing relative to orbital clocks (See: "Is the Gravitational Constant Changing?" Precision Measurement and Fundamental Constants II, editors B.N. Taylor and W.D. Philips, National Bureau of Standards (U.S.A.), Special Publication 617,1984, pp. 625-627).

According to Van Flandern, if the atomic clocks are correct, then the orbital speeds of Mercury, Venus, and Mars are increasing.

Walt Brown ("In the Beginning, 7^th Ed., p. 233) notes some reasons why orbital clocks appear to be correct and why atomic frequencies are probably slowing down:

• If a planet's orbital speed increased (and all other orbital parameters remained the same), its energy would increase. This would violate the law of conservation of mass-energy.
• If atomic clocks and Van Flandern's study are correct, the gravitational "constant" should change. Statistical studies have not detected these variations.
• If atomic frequencies are decreasing, then five "properties" of the atom, such as Planck's constant, should also be changing. Statistical studies of past measurements show four of the five are changing - and in the right direction (See: Alan Montgomery and Lambert Dolphin, "Is the Velocity of Light Constant in Time?" Galilean Electrodynamics, Vol. 4, No. 5, September-October 1993, pp. 93-97)

d. The Rotational Twist of Galaxies - If the speed of light has been constant, one would expect that the most distant galaxies should vary in appearance from those situated closer to us. The most distant galaxies would not have had as much time to twist or rotate their arms, whereas the arms of the closer galaxies should show significantly more twist. The most distant galaxies, however, appear remarkably similar to nearer galaxies. They all appear fully developed, showing no signs of "evolving", all having the same amount of "twist" in their arms. A decaying light speed would solve this enigma.

Which Method is Best?

Note that radiometric dates gives "ages" for only local areas, and therefore may not be the best method for gauging the age of the entire earth. If the uniformatarian assumption is maintained, then surely the better geochronometers would be those processes which encompass major sections, if not the entire planet (for example, the earth's decaying magnetic moment, lunar recession, helium accumulation in the atmosphere, the build up of c-14, etc.).

Furthermore, better geochronometers would also be those processes whose half-lives are relatively short. Scientists have observed the earth's decaying magnetic moment, whose half-life has been calculated at about 700 years, for approximately 25% of its half-life. We are more likely to detect a change in the decay rate in this process as opposed to the decay rate of something like uranium 238 (4.5 billion years), which has only been observed for about 2 millionths of its half-life.

These better geochronometers, yield ages for the planet that are far less than the billions of years called for by the evolution story. If decay rates were faster in the past, radiometric dates would fall into line with these geochronometers.

Has the Composition of the Sample Remained Unaltered?

This second assumption has problems as well. Because radiometric dating is a relatively extensive procedure, care is taken in determining whether or not a sample is suitable for this type of dating method. If researchers have reason to believe that the sample has become contaminated they will most likely not date the sample this way. Yet radiometric dates are often found to conflict with the evolution story. These are discarded as "extraneous" or said to be the result of "contamination." The reasoning is obviously circular, the only constant being the assumption that evolution is true.

From J E O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science, vol. 276, (Jan, 1976) p., 54:

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the Geologic column had not been erected first." (The geologic column, remember, is the theoretical upward, evolutionary progression of fossil life through the earth's strata).

So even the old-earth advocate must admit that samples can become contaminated (even when they appear at first blush not to be). Given that cataclysms can and have occurred in the past, it is more than little unreasonable to assume that none of the "parent" or "daughter" elements have been added to or taken away from, a particular sample throughout its entire history.

How Much of Each Element was There When the Process Began?

The assumption that the entire quantity of "daughter" element is from the decay of uranium is unproved and unprovable. Just as unprovable is the assumption that all of the "missing" U-238 has been lost due to isotopic decay.

This assumption is simply a denial of creation, since a creator might have easily created rocks with the appearance of age. Some might argue that this would be deceptive on God's part but the allegation is not justified. God is not deceiving anyone; He told us in His word how old the earth is. If the earth is actually old, then He would be deceiving us since His word clearly states otherwise.

There are many features of a functionally mature creation that must have existed. Some are listed here:

1. Continents with top soil
2. Plants bearing seed
3. Fruit tress bearing fruit
4. Land with a drainage system
5. Rocks with crystalline materials
6. Rocks containing various isotopes
7. Stars visible from earth
8. Birds able to fly
9. Adam and Eve created as adults

Isochron Plotting

The isochron radiometric dating method seeks to eliminate some of the uncertainties in the assumptions listed above. Not being an expert, I am willing to grant, with reservations, that isochrons do appear to be indicative of the isotopic decay process.

Isochrons at an Entry Level

The "generic" radiometric dating method measures the ration of parent isotope to its daughter. This system, as noted, relies on the assumptions that the decay rate has been constant, that the sample's composition has not been altered, and assumes to know how much of each material was present when the process began.

The isochron method compares the ratios of three isotopes as opposed to only two. For example, the Rubidium 87 (parent) would normally be measured against its daughter, Strontium 87. The isochron method determines the ratio of the parent to an isotope different that its daughter, but of the same element. In this case, Rubidium 87 would be measured against Strontium 86. This ratio, plotted along the "X" axis of a graph is then measured against the ratio of Strontium 87 to Strontium 86, which is plotted along the "Y" axis. Several samples taken from one area are measured and plotted this way. When these points are connected, they form a collinear line. This is interpreted as indicative that the sample(s) have undergone isotopic decay with no contamination.

Again, not being an expert, the isochron methodology does appear sound, since a very unlikely mixing scenario must be proposed which could affect, proportionately, the quantities of parent and daughter isotopes, especially considering that both forms of the daughter element (in this case strontium 86, and 87) have nearly identical chemical properties.

Helium Diffusion and the Rate of Isotopic Decay

John Morris ("The Young Earth", 2000, p. 83) explains:

"Helium is produced beneath the earth's surface by the process of radioactive decay. When certain of the radioactive isotopes undergo an alpha decay episode, they give off and alpha particle. This particle consists of two protons and two neutrons, and is the equivalent to the nucleus of a helium atom."

Helium is lightweight and very mobile, and should easily escape from the earth's rocks. However, in a personal e-mail from Astronomer Barry Setterfield (14 Feb. 2003), Mr. Setterfield offered the following data, relevant to this topic:

"In 1999, an assessment of data collected in 1997 indicated that the bottom 1000km of the earth's mantle contained anomalous reservoirs of heat producing elements ["Researchers propose a new model for earth mantle convection", MIT News Release 31 March, 1999]…In other words, there is a layer in the earth's interior ehere the radioactive were concentrated, and from which some have come to reside in the crust as a result of ongoing geologic processes. This means that the majority of helium must still be within the earth's mantle, not having enough time to work its way to the surface.

However, that does not account for the radioactive material which has come to reside in the crust of the earth. Where is the helium emitted by radioactive decay from that source? The possible answer is a surprise. It has been noted by R.E. Zartman in a Los Alamos Science Laboratory New Mexico gave an age for the granitic basement complex there about 1.5 billion atomic years. However, when zircons from this complex were analyzed by Gentry et al in 1982, they were found to contain very large percentages of helium, despite the hot conditions [R.V. Gentry, G.L. Glish and E.H. McBay "Differential helium retention in zircons…" Geophysical Research Letters Vol. 9 (1982), p. 1129]. The zircons were surrounded by a matrix of mica which prevented the helium from escaping. In other words, these zircons crystals had retained within them the radioactive decay products of almost 1.5 billion atomic years, without very much diffusing out. Work must still be done on the diffusion rate of helium through mica (in this case biotite), and Humphreys has made a creationist prediction about this compared with the diffusion rate expected from the evolutionist position [op. cit., p. 344, 350]. I find myself in agreement with this assessment."

Therefore the answer to your question on these assessments is that (1) radiogenic helium is trapped in the interior of the earth, not having sufficient time to be brought to the surface from the radioactive layer that exists at a depth of 1700 km, while (2) much of that which was brought up to the crust has not diffused out of the host rocks, again because of insufficient time and also because of much lower diffusion rates than previously anticipated. This position has at least some experimental data to support it."

Therefore, it appears as though millions of years of isotopic decay have occurred within the rock of the earth. The fact that the products of this decay (i.e. the lightweight and highly mobile helium) still exist in quantity within the earth's interior suggests an accelerated rate of isotopic decay in the past.

Conclusion to the Isochron Question

Isochrons appear to indicate isotopic decay has occurred. This is not conclusively indicative of any known period of time for the following reasons:

1. Exactly why isotopes decay remains a mystery
2. A strong case for a reduction of the speed of light, and all this implicates, has already been advanced
3. The accumulation of decay products in the earth's interior suggests substantial isotopic decay has occurred. However, the lack of diffusion of these products suggests they accumulated rapidly in the not too distant past.

Orphan Haloes

When an isotope undergoes decay, energy released causes a spherical ring of damage in the surrounding crystal matrix. Each isotope along the uranium to lead decay series leaves it own "signature" halo.

Don Batten, B.Sc (Hons.), Ph.D. summarizes the problem ("Does Carbon Dating disprove the Bible?", 2002, p. 31):

"…Po has a half-life of just 3 minutes. Curiously, rings created by polonium decay are often found embedded in crystals without the parent uranium halos. Now the polonium has to get into the rock before the rock solidifies , but it cannot derive from the uranium speck in the rock - otherwise, there would be a uranium halo, assuming uranium decayed slowly, as it does today. Either the polonium was created, or it is primordial (not derived from uranium), or there have been radical changed in decay rates in the past. Whatever process was responsible for the halos could also be a key also to understanding radiometric dating."

Carbon 14 Dating

Cosmic radiation strikes Nitrogen-14 in the atmosphere producing radioactive carbon (C-14). C-14 readily combines with oxygen to produce radioactive CO2, which enters the food chain. When an animal or plant dies, it ceases to take in C-14, and what is there begins to decay back into N-14. The quantity of C-12, also present, will remain unchanged as C-12 is a stable isotope, and it is this ratio between C-14 / C-12 that scientists look for when assessing a specimen's age.

Problems With the Underlying Assumptions

Like generic radiometric dating, C-14 dating requires that certain unproven assumptions be made.

1. Decay Has Been Constant - The half-life of C-14 today indicates it has a half-life of 5,730 years. We must assume this has always been the case, though it cannot be proven.


2. Living Things Contain the Same Ratio of C-14 / C-12 as is Contained in the Atmosphere - Scientists must assume to know exactly what the ratio of C-14 / C-12 was in the plant (or animal) while it was still alive and interacting with its environment. According to Don Batten B.Sc. Agr. (Hons), Ph.D. ("Does Carbon Dating disprove the Bible?", 2002, p. 5):
   

   "Firstly, plants discriminate against carbon dioxide containing ¹⁴C. That is, they take up less than would be expected abs sot they look older than they really are. Different types of plants discriminate differently."

   Batten explains (p. 36) "Today, a stable carbon isotope, ¹³C, is measured as an indication of the level of discrimination against ¹⁴C.


3. The C-14 / C-12 Ratio in the Atmosphere Has Remained Constant or is Known
   
   This ratio has not been constant. Batten (p. 5) states that:
   

   "…with the industrial revolution the ratio has decreased with the burning of fossil fuels that released into the atmosphere a lot of carbon dioxide that was depleted in ¹⁴C. This would make things that died at that time appear older in terms of carbon dating."

Other Factors Which Affect Assumption C:

• The sun's activity. Obviously, no one can claim to know exactly how the sun was behaving over the last 50,000 years.
• Magnetic Clouds. The passage of our solar system through magnetic clouds as it travels around the Milky Way galaxy.
• Fluctuations in the earth's magnetic field. Overall the earth's magnetic field has been decreasing, so now more C-14 is being produced than in the past (Batten p. 7).  Furthermore, evidence suggests rapid reversals have taken place in the earth's magnetic field. Obviously this further complicates matters when trying to assess the carbon inventory of earth's atmosphere in the distant past. (See Section 2.1. pt. 1.)
• Volcanism. Volcanoes emit much CO2 depleted in C-14. A period of increased volcanism would result in radiocarbon ages which are falsely high.
• A Cataclysm. Walt Brown ("In the Beginning, 7^th Ed., p. 244) states:

"For example, a worldwide flood would uproot and bury preflood forests. Afterward, less carbon would be available from decaying vegetation to cycle between living things and the atmosphere. With less carbon-12 to dilute the carbon-14 continually forming from nitrogen in the upper atmosphere, the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 in the atmosphere would increase. If the atmosphere's ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has doubled since the flood and we did not know it, radiocarbon ages of things living soon after the flood would appear to be one half-life (or 5,730 years) older than their true ages."

The Flood Waters and Limestone - The existence of so much limestone (10-15% of all sedimentary rock implies that the carbon inventory in the atmosphere has been radically altered. Specifically, that C-12 has been added to the atmosphere in quantity, making radiocarbon ages appear older than they actually are.

The Line of Reasoning:

1. A massive amount of limestone exists on planet earth. It is claimed to be the product of millions of years of accumulation of shallow water marine organisms, but,


2. this explanation fails because organic limestone differs structurally (more intricate) than inorganic limestone. Also, waves and predators could not have broken up marine organisms such as corals and shell creatures into sizes typical of limestone grains. So,


3. the limestone which makes up so much of the earth's sedimentary rock appears to have precipitated out of the water. However,


4. an approximate balance exists between the amount of CO2 found in surface waters, and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. This means that,


5. for every carbon atom chemically precipitated in limestone, a carbon atom is released in CO2. If the world's limestone were precipitated this way, as much carbon would have been released into the atmosphere (as CO2) as was precipitated as limestone. But today,


6. limestone contains over 60,000,000 x 10¹⁵ grams of carbon. Such a huge amount of carbon in the atmosphere and seas would have made them toxic many times over.
   
   The best explanation for the origin of limestone is that it came from within the earth as the "fountains of the deep broke open." It is theorized that limestone once lined the walls of this subterranean chamber. As this water escaped its pressure dropped drastically, causing CO2 gas and microscopic particles of limestone to come out of solution. This rapidly-escaping water would have scoured out the soft limestone which lined the chamber walls. (For much more, see Walt Brown's Hydroplate Theory explained in "In the Beginning" on line @ www.creationscience.com). If this explanation for the origin of the earth's vast limestone deposits is true,


7. then a massive amount of carbon would have been added to the earth's atmosphere during the flood as the decreasing water pressure brought both limestone and CO2 gas out of solution. This carbon would have been Carbon-12 because it came from beneath the earth's surface and was shielded from cosmic radiation. With the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 altered this way,


8. radiocarbon dates arrived at today would be erroneously high.

Problems with using Dendrochronology in order to Establish "Long Chronologies"

Because the ratio of C-14 / C-12 has not remained constant, and because so many factors can affect our atmosphere's carbon inventory, scientists have utilized a method called dendrochronology. This method seeks to establish a "calibration curve" by comparing C-14/C-12 ratios in tree rings stretching back into this past. This supposedly gives the researcher information on the earth's carbon inventory at the time the rings were formed. It is assumed that objects which died at that time also possessed the same C-14/C-12 ratios.

John Morris ("The Young Earth", 2000, p. 66) explains the problem:

"The technique is very precise and persuasive, but it has serious weaknesses, one of which hasn't been resolved, involving the reliability of dendrochronological methods as developed by researchers. The oldest living tree is thought to be on the order of 4500 years old. Yet the tree-ring chronology extends roughly twice that. Obviously, since no single tree lived throughout the entire time, dendrochronologists must match up tree ring patterns from trees whose life spans are thought to have overlapped in order to extend the series far back into the past. This of course is fraught with difficulty and subjective analysis. Even trees living today do not always show the same tree-ring patterns. Variations are seen from tree to tree, others are due to distance from water source, prevailing sunlight direction, nutrients in the soil, etc. Investigations look for shorter sequences within the pattern thought to be unique, and thus can be used for correlation. Much care is taken but problems still exist."

Harold S. Gladwin, "Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon, and Bristlecones", Anthropological Journal of Canada, vol.14, No. 4, 1976, p.5:

"Among the pines, is, if anything, even more undependable than the junipers…We have many cores from the bristlecones growing in the white mountains of California, east of the Sierra Nevadas, at altitudes of 10,000 feet, where the rainfall is low and erratic. There are also a number of cores from bristlecones growing at high altitudes in south-western Utah and on the San Francesco peaks at Flagstaff, Arizona. Comparison of charts of measured rings show no similarity whatever."

Summary of Factors Affecting Tree Rings:

1. Distance from water source
2. Prevailing sunlight direction
3. Nutrients in the soil
4. Volcanism
5. Unstable weather patterns (The Ice Age which followed the Noachian flood could have created many pseudo-winter/summer patterns as the earth re-stabilized)

Dendrochronology's Subjective Nature & Circular Reasoning:

"These claimed "long chronologies" begin with either living trees or dead wood that can be accurately dated by historical methods. This carries the chronology back perhaps 3500 years. Then the more questionable links are established on the judgment of a tree-ring specialist. Sometimes "missing" rings are added."

From Walt Brown, "In the Beginning", 7th ed., p. 244. Also see, Harold S. Gladwin, "Anthropological Journal of Canada", vol. 14, No. 4, 1976, pp. 2-7

"Wood specimens considered for "long chronologies" are first radiocarbon dated. If the date is old enough (perhaps by an erroneous reading), tree-ring specialists, look at ring thickness for a way to extend the "long chronology."

Walt Brown, "In the Beginning", 7th ed., p. 246. Also see:

Henry N. Michael and Elizabeth K. Ralph, "Quickee C Dates", Radiocarbon, vol. 23, No. 1, 1981, pp. 165-166

Radiometric Dating Anomalies:

"One part of Dima was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the wood immediately around the carcass was 9-10,000." Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratagraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (US Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." In the Beginning, Walt Brown, p. 124

Summary of Reasons to Reject Isotopic Dating as Definitive

1. Little is known about isotopic decay
2. Decay has only been observed for a small fraction of the parent isotope's half-life
3. The vast majority of other geochronometers point to a youthful world
4. Many of these other geochronometers appear to be better methods for dating the entire earth because they are global in nature, whereas radiometric dating must focus on individual samples, which may be subject to contamination
5. The speed of light appears to have been slowing down over time, which means a reduction in the rate of isotopic decay has also occurred

Conclusion to the Radiometric / Radiocarbon Dating Question

In order to use the radiometric dating method as a reliable geochronometer, certain unproven assumptions must first be maintained. One such assumption would be that the earth actually is billions of years old, which would necessarily find the Bible in error. One could certainly maintain this if they wanted to, however, our presuppositions cannot also be our conclusions, or else we are simply begging the question. In other words, the person who assumes that the Bible is giving us an erroneous account of the earth's age and origins, cannot use the radiometric dating scheme as proof of his worldview, since a denial of the creation account is a prerequisite before one can regard the radiometric dating method as accurate in the first place.