How the earth came into being and when has been the subject of much speculation by those who do not accept the biblical six-day creation
account. The reality is that this type of speculation cannot be proven with any certainty because it relates to
an historical event that cannot be repeated.
Geological ages are most often stated as a matter of fact in scientific journals,
textbooks, books, secular magazines, government publications, the news, programs on television, on the internet, at museums including
the Smithsonian, and state and national parks. However, with each method of dating, there are underlying presumptions and
assumptions that are highly prejudicial to what the results will be. Just because something is repeated often or one
or the majority of scientists say it’s so does not make it so. After all, many scientists in Louis Pasteur's day believed
in spontaneous generation and Charles Darwin thought that blacks were inferior. Scientists, although they try to appear to be
objective, have their prejudices also.
Table 4 presents some of the current dating methods used by old earth age and
young earth age (biblical six-day creation) advocates. The consequences of these views in who we are and how
we live are profound and should not be taken lightly.
.
Table 4 – AGE OF THE EARTH (Part 1)
F Facts A Assumptions [1]
|
Decay of Long Half-Life Isotopes |
|
Old Age (4.5- billion?) [2] F 1. The age of the earth by long half-life radioisotope dating methods disagree with dozens of physical processes such as the
current rates of disposition of various chemicals into the ocean, and of the wearing away of the continental crust. [3][4] F 2. The whole rock ages by different radioisotope methods often vary greatly. [5] F 3. Minerals known
to be very recent in origin are often dated millions of years old by radioisotope methods. [6] A 1. The earth is extremely old based on the requirements of the general evolutionary hypothesis. A 2. Rate of
radioisotope decay is constant for billions of years. This assumption is logically impossible to prove because continuous decay measurements
have not been taken from the earth’s beginning. It may be disproved by evidence to the contrary. A 3. Amount
of original daughter material present at mineral formation under certain conditions can be determined with some certainty. A 4. Earth was formed at about the same time as meteorites and the age of meteorites must agree with “an unproved and unprovable
idea about solar-system formation.” [9] |
|
Young Age (Thousands?) F Accelerated isotope decay has occurred
in the past based on the following RATE [10] project results: (a) Zircon crystals with an alleged 1.5- billion-year age based
on radioisotope dating were recovered from Precambrian granitic rock in New Mexico. [11] Yet, tests indicate they contain huge concentrations
of helium from uranium decay that should have diffused thousands of years ago. [12] [13] [14] This provides strong evidence for one
or more periods of accelerated nuclear decay in the past and a young age for the earth. [15] (b) The abundance of fission
tracks and radiohalos give evidence of accelerated decay because they should have been erased from the mineral due to heating by tectonic
and volcanic activity if the earth was not young. [16] A 1. The earth is young based on the Bible. A 2. Isotopes matching daughter products may have been present at formation. A 3. Accelerated radioisotope decay
is thought to have occurred during creation and/or the flood. [17] |
|
Earth’s Magnetic Field |
|
Old Age (Greater than
3.5-billion?) F 1. Earth’s magnetic field is generally thought by old universe age adherents “to be associated
with electrical currents produced by the coupling of convective effects and the rotation in the spinning liquid metallic outer core
of iron and nickel. This mechanism is termed the dynamo effect.” [18][19] F 2. The Earth’s magnetic field dipole
moment has decayed from 1835 to 2005. See item 3 under Creation below. F 3. The Moon and Mars had strong magnetic
fields in the past, but none now. [20] [21] [22] F 4. Earth magnetic field reversals have occurred in
the past. [23] F 5. A reversal “is but one detail of the magnetic field that is not well understood.”[24] F 6. The dynamo hypothesis has no real predictive power. Examples: (a) Magnetic field dipole
moments of planets Mercury and Uranus were not close to the zero or very little predictions by the dynamo model. [25][26] (b) It does not predict when a reversal will take place or how long the reversal will be. [27][28] A 1. Only planetary
magnetic field generation theories that support the evolutionary hypothesis requiring the universe to be billions of years old are
acceptable. A The Earth’s magnetic field is prevented from decaying by constantly being replenished by electrical
currents created by convection in the outer core. [29] A 3. Both the Moon and Mars are thought to have had
dynamos that stopped. [30] [31] A 4. The earth’s magnetic field reversals are thought to be evidence against the
creationist’s magnetic field decay hypothesis and for the dynamo hypothesis. [32] [33] A 5. Reversals in the earth’s
magnetic field are dated using long radioisotope half-life assumptions. [34] Last reversal is thought to be 780,000 years ago. [35] A 6. Reversals last thousands of years. [36][37] A 7. Supercomputer models have or can prove the
dynamo theory. [38] A 8. Earth’s magnetic field is 3.5 billion years old. [39][40] This age is based on a lot of
unproved assumptions including rate of radioisotope decay is constant for billions of years. |
|
Young Age (Less than
10,000 Maximum?) F 1. Since the 1970’s, the hypothesis popular with young earth believers in the scientific
community attributes the earth’s magnetic field to “freely decaying electric currents in the earth’s core.” [41] [42] F 2. The earth’s magnetic field is induced by electrical currents in the earth’s core. F 3. The earth’s(dipole [43]) magnetic field moment has been measured continually since 1835 and has decreased by 7% since then to 2005. This is equivalent
to an approximate half-life of 1400 years. [44] F 4. From 1970 to 2000, the net loss of all energy from
all parts of the magnetic field (dipole and non dipole) “was 1.41 +or - 0.16%. At that rate, the field would lose half its energy
every 1465 +or– 166 years.” [45] F 5. A half-life of 1400 years means that the field would be twice as strong 2800
years ago, four times 4200 years ago, and so on. At this rate, about 10000 years ago the heat generated would cause the planet
earth to be disintegrated. The age of the earth is therefore thought to be limited to 10,000 years. [46] F 6. Evidence of a rapid magnetic field reversal has been found in a thin lava flow in the Steens Mountain in Oregon, USA with
45 degrees change in less than 15 days. [47] F 7. “The present magnetic field strengths of the Earth, Sun, Moon,
and planets agree very well with the values produced by this theory and a 6000-year age for the solar system.” [48] F 8. Magnetic field predictions by this model for Mercury, Mars, Uranus, and Neptune have been right on as verified by spacecraft. [49] A 1. Only planetary magnetic field generation theories that support a young age for the universe are acceptable. A 2. Earth’s magnetic field generation and decay follow the established laws of electronics. A 3. The earth at
creation about 6000 years ago had a large electrical current that immediately began to steadily decay. A 4. The
electrical resistance of the earth’s core will steadily dissipate the field’s energy as heat. [50][51] A 5. Uses
the uniformitarian assumption to calculate the half-life. A 6. Magnetic field reversals occurred within days
and weeks during the yearlong worldwide Flood recorded in the Bible due to massive disturbances within the earth. [52][53] A 7. The earth was made from water. [54] This view is not held by all creationists. A 8. Factors important in
calculating the magnetic fields of planets, the moon and sun are their mass, core radius, core electrical conductivity, approximate
6000-year age of the solar system, and whether they were originally formed from water. [55][56] A 9. Radioactive
decay has not been constant for billions of years. |
[1] Not
all assumptions have been listed.
[2] Lutgens, Frederick and Tarbuck, Edward, Essentials of Geology, 9th ed., Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey: Pearson Prentice Hall, 2006, 4
[3] Scientific Creationism, Editor Henry Morris, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 1985,
154
[4] in six days, Editor John Ashton, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2000, 236. Chapter by John Baumgardner
[5] Morris, John, The Young Earth, revised and expanded, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2009, 57 (from table),
[6] Swenson, Keith, Is the Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Really a Million Years Old? http://www.creationism.org/articles/swenson1.htm
[7] Amelin, Yuri and Krot, Alexander (2007), Pb isotopic age of the allende chondrules. Meteoritics & Planetary Science, 42: 1321-1335.
doi:10.1111/j. 1945-5100.2007.tb00577x
[8] Morris, 60
[9] Ibid 59, 60
[10] RATE stands for “Radioisotopes and the Age of
the Earth,” an eight year project started in 1997. “The primary focus of this research effort was the radioactive methods for dating
rocks that supposedly yield age estimates of millions and billions of years and thus provide support for the claimed multi-billion
year age for the earth.” The research team was composed of seven scientists (meteorologist Larry Vardiman; physicists Eugene
Chafin, Don DeYoung, and Russell Humphreys; geologists Steven Austin and Andrew Snelling; geophysicist John Baumgardiner; and biblical
Hebrew scholar Steven Boyd) all with earned PhDs. Snelling, Andrew, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Answers in Genesis,
Oct. 31, 2007, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/radioisotopes-earth
[11] Humphreys, D. Russell, Austin, Steven, etal. Helium
Diffusion Rates Support Accelerated Nuclear Decay, Answers in Genesis, Feb. 2, 2011, http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v6/n1/accelerated-nuclear-decay
[12] Ibid.
[13] in six days, Baumgardner, 235
[14] DeYoung, Don, Thousands… Not Billions, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 2005, 78
[15] Humphreys,
D. Russell, Austin, Steven, etal.
[16] DeYoung, 106
[17] Humphreys, D. Russell, Austin, Steven, etal.
[18] The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Astronomy 161, Department of Physics and Astronomy, The University of Tennessee, Knotsville, Tennessee, http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr161/lect/earth/magnetic.html
[19] One
variation on the dynamo hypothesis proposes that the “solid core formation in Earth’s interior maintains the dynamo to this day by
virtue of the related ‘stirring’ of the molten core around it.” Luhmann, J.G., and Russell, C.T.,Venus: Magnetic Field and Magnetosphere,Encyclopedia of Planetary Sciences, Editors J. H. Shirley and R.W. Fainbridge, New York: Chapman and Hall, 1997, 905-907,
http://www-scc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/
[20] Antonenko, Irene, New Insights into the Moon’s Mysterious Magnetic Field, Universe Today, Jan. 2012, http://www.universetoday.com/93118/new-insights-into-the-moons-mysterious-magnetic-field/
[21] Plate Tectonics on Mars? Editor Tony Phillips,
http://science 1.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1999/ast29ap…
[22] Mars
Global Surveyor Magnetic Field Experiment MAG/ER, http://mgs-mager.gsfc.nasa.gov/index.html
[23] Lutgens, 356
[24] The Earth’s Magnetic Field, Ibid.
[25] Humphreys, D. Russell, Beyond Neptune: Voyager II Supports Creation, Acts and Facts. 19 (5), http://www.icr.org/article/beyond-neptune-voyager-ii-supports-creation/
[26] Humphreys, D. Russell, Mercury’s crust is magnetized, Jul. 18, 2012,
http://creation.com/mercury-magnetized-crust
[27] Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field, Editor Alex Pline,
http://science.nasa.gov./science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/29 dec_ magneticfield/
[28] Morris,
J, 2010, Earth’s Magnetic Field. Acts &Facts. 39 (8):16, http://www.icr.org/article/earths-magnetic-field
[29] Roach, Ibid
[30] Antonenko (for moon)
[31] Plate Tectonics on Mars? (for Mars)
[32] Sarfati, Jonathan, The earth’s magnetic field: evidence
that the earth is young, http://creation.com/the-earths-magnetic-field-evidene-that-the-earth-is-young
[33] Ibid.
[34] Lutgens and Tarbuck, 356
[35] Roach, John, Earth’s Magnetic Field is Fading, National Geographic News, Sep.. 9, 2004, http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/pf/58784286.html
[36] How Long Does It Take for Earth’s Magnetic Field to Reverse? ScienceDaily, Apr. 8, 2004, http://www. sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040408085209.htm
[37] Earth’s Inconstant Magnetic Field
[38] Ibid.
[39] Bettex, Morgan, Explained: Dynamo theory, MIT news, Mar. 25, 2010, http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2010/explained-dynamo-0325.html
[40] Grossman,
Lisa, Earth’s Magnetic Field Is 3.5 Billion Years Old, Wired Science, Mar. 5, 2010, http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/earths-magnetic-field-is-35-billion-years-old/
[41] This hypothesis was original proposed by physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes.
[42] Snelling, Andrew, Fossil magnetism reveals rapid
reversals of the earth’s magnetic field, http://creation.com/fossil-magnetism-reveals-rapid-reversals-pf-the-earths-magnetic-field
[43] Humphreys, D. Russell, The Earth’s Magnetic Field: Closing a Loophole in the Case for its Youth, Creation Matters, 7(2), March/April
2002. Added for clarity
[44] Morris, J, 2010
[45] Humphreys, D, 2002
[46] Morris, J, 2010.
[47] Snelling
[48] Humphreys, D. Russell, The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields, CRSQ Vol. 21, Num. 3,
Dec. 1984, http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/21/21_3/21_3.html
[49] Ibid.
[50] Humphreys, D, 2002
[51] Scientific
Creationism, 158
[54] Bible, 2 Peter 3:5
[55] Humphreys (Table 2)
[56] Sarfati