Radiometric Dating: Not Independent Evidence of an Old Earth or Evolution

Radiometric dates are often cited as evidence of an old earth, and of the validity of the evolution story in general. This is misleading, since the underlying assumption - that evolution has occurred - is used as a yardstick to measure the trustworthiness of a particular radiometric date. Radiometric dates therefore, cannot be used as independent confirmation of evolution's validity.

Lee, Robert E , From the Anthropological Journal of Canada, cited in John D Morris' "The Young Earth", Aug. 2000:

"The troubles of radiocarbon dating are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged and warnings are out that radiocarbon dating may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half have come to be accepted. No matter how "useful" it is though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates."

"It may come as a shock to some, but fewer than 50 percent of the radiocarbon dates from geological and archaeological samples in northeastern North America have been opted as 'acceptable' by investigators." J. Gordon Ogden III, "Use and Abuse of Radiocarbon Dates, " Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 288:187 (1977).

Geologist R.L. Mauger (1977) is cited by Thomson and Cremo, "Forbidden Archeology", p. 694:

"In general, dates in the 'correct ballpark' are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are the discrepancies fully explained."

Geologist J.B. Waterhouse (1978) is cited by Thompson and Cremo, p. 695:

"It is, of course, all too facile to 'correct' various values by explanations of leakage, or initially high concentrations of strontium or argon. These explanations may be correct, but they first must be related to a time line or 'cline of values' itself subject to similar adjustments and corrections on a nonstatistical and nonexperimental basis."

"If a C-14 date supports our theories, we put it in the main text. If it does not entirely contradict them, we put it in a footnote. And if it is completely 'out of date,' we just drop it." Professor Brew, quoted by J.O.D. Johnston, "Problems

"This [radiodating verification by actual historical dates] is not true of geological and archaeological measurements, except in relatively rare instances. Measurements of time in these fields are inferred from processes, the rates of change or progress of which are not consistent and which are, as yet, quite unpredictable. There is no known standard rate for any one of these processes, and measurements of time for one process are invariably relative to rates of progress in other processes." Frederick Johnson, quoted in H. M. Morris, W. W. Boardman, and R. F. Koontz, Science and Creation (1971), p. 85.

This point is not to be missed. Men like Grinspoon have used radiometric dating as evidence against biblical creation. All proponents of the radiometric dating method however, must admit that false dates are sometimes arrived at. The question that must be asked is, how do you know the date is wrong? The answer of course is that it conflicts with the accepted theory of evolution. An underlying belief that evolution has occurred is the "yard-stick" by which radiometric dates are measured. If radiometric dating is indeed to be trusted, then the following discoveries should have invalidated the evolution theory:

a) The Taung Child skull

As mentioned earlier, for Taung, the type specimen of Australopithecus africanus to be considered our ancestor, an age of at least 2 million years is required. At least two radiometric dates confirmed Geologist T.C. Partridge's assertion that Taung was under a million years old. From Lubenow, "Bones of Contention", p. 52:

"[A less than 1 million year old] date was supported by a date of about 1 m.y.a. by thermoluminescence analysis of calcite and uranium series dates of 942,000 y.a. and 764,000 y.a. on limestone."

Again, if radiometric dates are so definitive as to be used as evidence against the creation model, then Australopithecus africanus ought to be removed from the lineage of man since its presence at less than a million years ago does not constitute an evolutionary continuum.

Lubenow further cites Richard Klein of the University of Chicago, (Lubenow p. 52):

"…a date for Taung of 2 mya or more may seem most reasonable, but the argument is obviously circular and the true age remains uncertain."

b) The Amund I Neandertal

According to the evolution story, the people known as "Neanderthals" went extinct between 30,000 and 35,000 years ago. Lubenow (p. 73) cites evidence that the "Neanderthals" persisted long after their alleged demise:

"The Neandertal skull known as Amund I from Upper Galilee, Israel, was found as a burial just below the top of layer BI. If Amund I was buried into layer BI, it follows that the he cannot be older than Layer BI but could be younger. The radiocarbon date for Upper BI is 5,710 y.a. Miachael Day (British Museum-Natural History) states: 'These dates are believed to be too 'young' as the result of contamination by younger carbon.'"

Lubenow further cites "The Radiocarbon Journal's" comment on the Neanderthal's age (p. 74):

"Comment: for a Neanderthal, present date is too recent. The possibility of more modern travertine contaminating older travertine to yield a more recent composite date, or the relocation of an ancient mandible into travertine is open."

Lubenow observes (p.74):

"Possibilities are given for the too recent date, but no physical evidence is cited to indicate that these possibilities are valid. The arbitrary assertion that the date is too recent for a Neanderthal apparently settles the matter."

c) Skull #1470

An entire detailed case study of the dating of this controversial fossil is found in Lubenow's "Bones of Contention" appendix PP.247-266, and Thomson and Cremo's "Forbidden Archeology" pp. 693-699.

The KBS tuff in East Rudolf was assigned a radiometric (potassium-argon) age of 212-213 million years (Lubenow p. 249, Thompson and Cremo pp.693-699). Lubenow cites F.J. Fitch and J. A. Miller, "Radioisotopic Age Determinations of Lake Rudolf Artifact Site", Nature 226 (April 18, 1970):226-26:

"From these results it was clear that an extraneous argon age discrepancy was present…"

One might reasonably ask, how do we know the age was in error? Only the fact that the fossils discovered there (according to the evolution story) could not possibly be over 200 million years old.

The KBS tuff was re-dated and assigned a solid age of 2.8 million years. Then Richard Leakey discovered the now famous skull KNMER 1470 underneath the tuff. The skull's morphology appeared very human, with a high dome, thin cranium not seen in the Austraopithecines. Here the age posed a problem. Leakey stated (National Geographic, 1973):

"Either we toss the skull or we toss all our theories about early man…Leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change".

Lubenow ("Bones of Contention" - Appendix) explains how the tuff was dated and re-dated in an attempt to give the skull a more appropriate age. In the end, this was accomplished not by the radiometric dating method, but by making a "biochronological" comparison of 1470 with the evolution of pigs. The entire process must assume that evolution has occurred and therefore cannot be used in any way as "proof" for evolution. The point is, in the case of 1470, as in many other cases, radiometric dates which do not support the evolution story are simply discarded.

Thompson and Cremo conclude (p. 699):

"Many place excessive, even unquestioning faith in published age determinations, unaware of the many sources of error inherent in current dating methods. They do not adequately appreciate the crucial role that the judgments of the individual researchers play in arriving at a published date from among the spread of dates often obtained from a series of tests. These complex judgments can easily be influenced by the researcher's expectations and preconceptions."

If radiometric dates are to be trusted, so much so that they can be used as evidence for creation, then what are we to make of these dates, which seriously and utterly disrupt the evolution theory?

E.T. Hall (1974), Director of Oxford's Research Laboratory for Archeology and the History of Art, is cited by Thompson and Cremo, p. 695:

[Radiometric dates] tend to acquire a spurious infallibility for the layman and the quasi-scientist like archeologists. They believe because they want to believe."

Conclusion: Radiometric dating is not the independent confirmation of evolution and an old earth as many have been lead to believe. Evolution remains the unproved assumption by which all the data must be measured. If the facts happen to conflict with the evolution story, then so much worse for the facts!