Grand_Canyon_Creation | Letters to Creationists


why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate

The fact that radiogenic helium and argon are still degassing from the Earth's interior prove that the Earth must be young. Rather, as water seeped through cracks in the minerals, a chemical change caused newly-formed polonium to drop out of solution at a certain place and almost immediately decay there. For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

Evil, then, was a permanent necessity and there was nothing essentially good in the pagan universe. The claims made by these YE creationists were indeed extraordinary, overturning the consensus of tens of thousands of lifelong scholars of geology as to the age of the earth and the nature of its sedimentary rocks. Thus the story can be falsified on two counts: The evolution of language is not the same as the evolution of biological organisms; the latter is Darwinian, whereas the former is Lamarckian, dependent upon acquisition of inherited characteristics. That assumption is a decent place to start, since gaseous Argon will have largely been lost from a pool of melted rock before it cools and solidifies, but it is known to be not entirely correct. A nuclear reactor emits a very large number of neutrons, which are capable of changing a small amount of the potassium into argon

The pressure is too high for fractures to form. Thus, over millions of years, rock layers readily deform into tight bends without cracking. There is no mystery or serious dispute on this. We have already seen evidence that rocks can get deeply buried, then raised back to the surface. Often, the crystalline grains that make up the rocks move but remain intact during this bending. In some cases, the grains become deformed, showing the immense force and high temperatures involved; this is incompatible with bending of fresh, soft, wet deposits.

Olasky failed to do rudimentary fact checking on this remarkable claim by Snelling. Below this point rock strength decreases because fractures become closed and the temperature is higher, making the rocks behave in a ductile manner. The article tries to draw a huge distinction between the Galileo controversy and the evolution, regarding Bible and science:. Many Christian leaders prior to Galileo were geocentric, thinking as some passages from the Bible might suggest, and as Aristotle stipulated that the sun moves around the earth, which was thought to stand still.

That was an unusual situation where [E1] the Bible was unclear and [E2] the science became clear. With evolution, the opposite is true: These words appear to be Dr. The corrections are below. E1 The Bible passages are clear that the earth is fixed , and the sun moves, if we take them at their literal meaning. Neither Galileo nor his prosecutors disputed that. His scheme did provide an elegant means to reconcile many observations, but it was subject to dispute by determined opponents. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is in the center of the universe and that the sun does not go around the earth but the earth goes around the sun, then it would be necessary to be careful in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary.

We should rather have to say that we do not understand them than to say that something is false. But I do not think there is any such demonstration, since none has been shown me.

This is important for our approach to evolution today. E3 Although a literal reading of the Bible militates against evolution , it is debatable whether this literal interpretation is the correct one. Yes, the ancient writers and readers of the Bible taught and believed that all species including the first two humans were created in the first week of creation, and thereafter the species were fixed.

But that is only part of the story; we must note that the Biblical authors also taught that the sun moves past a fixed earth, that stars were affixed to a dome-like firmament, that there were three days with morning and evening before the sun itself was made, that rabbits chew the cud, that drawing on the Adam and Eve narrative women absolutely must wear veils in church, and that slavery is acceptable.

See below for further discussion of Bible interpretation issues. E4 The scientific evidence for evolution is utterly convincing to those who can view it with some measure of objectivity. The weight of this evidence continually changes the minds of folks like Francis Collins and like me who were brought up as YE creationists and hence had a prejudice against evolution.

To rehearse all the interlocking evidence for evolution in paleontology, phylogeny, genetics, and biochemistry would take many pages. The Scientific Case for Common Descent. Anyone who thinks evolution is unsupported should read that essay. While its core thesis common descent, mediated by natural selection operating on heritable variations has stood the test of time, the learnings of the ensuing years show that some modifications and additions are justified. That was a clever move: Since molecular biology is a new and complex field, there have been significant advances in our understanding of the details of how evolution operates.

It can be difficult to determine how much positive selection was involved for any given gene. ID advocates whoop and holler over these new insights as though evolution itself is tottering, but that is sheer deceit.

These advances in understanding are just the normal way science works to hone its theories. The article gives an overall favorable treatment to the YE creationists and their claims that the Canyon was carved by rapid runoff of Flood waters through unconsolidated Flood sediments. This scenario does not match what is actually there in the Canyon. A satellite image of the Scablands is shown below. As Wilfred Elders notes:. Austin fails to take note of the radical differences between the geological formations in the Channeled Scablands and the Grand Canyon.

It would be hard to imagine two canyons more geomorphically dissimilar to one another. We also know what a valley looks like when it is rapidly excavated from soft, recently deposited earth — such valleys appeared on the flank of Mt.

Helens in the years following its eruption of ash and mud. They are wide and U-shaped, not narrow and V-shaped like much of the Grand Canyon. The main Canyon runs east-west. There are various butte-like structures within the Canyon. If the Canyon were really blasted out of soft sediment by a gigantic east-to-west gush of Flood water, erosive enough to carve deep into the solid rock in the Inner Gorge in a matter of weeks, these buttes made of recent Flood mud would have all been swept away.

Likewise, the gushing east-west waters could not simultaneously carve all the north-south side canyons which reach down to near the level of the Colorado River see the first photo in this essay, taken from the air.

These deep side canyons are best explained by many thousands of years of normal erosion. Finally, recently-deposited soft Flood sediments could not support the near-vertical cliff faces that were carved in many places in the Canyon. These flaws in the Flood explanation for the Grand Canyon are clear even to a non-specialist. We stand for factual accuracy and biblical objectivity, trying to see the world as best we can the way the Bible depicts it… We cover all aspects of the news: We have feisty columns and religious reflections.

We even have cartoons and a page with funny or strange stories. But what matters the most is this: We believe in a God who tells the truth and wants us to do the same. Despite the criticisms voiced here, I recommend this magazine to anyone seeking a Biblical perspective on the arts, news, and, well, almost everything see here for on-line version of WORLD.

The Grand Canyon article does not violate the letter of these high principles, but it fails to live up to the spirit of thorough truth-telling.

The article is accurate in reporting on what the rafting YE creationists claimed, i. Unless engaging in shameless advocacy, though, a journalist has a responsibility to his or her readers to do a reasonable amount of fact-checking, especially when an interviewee is making extraordinary claims. The claims made by these YE creationists were indeed extraordinary, overturning the consensus of tens of thousands of lifelong scholars of geology as to the age of the earth and the nature of its sedimentary rocks.

Olasky, however, said only nice things about his hosts, reported all their statements without challenge, and obligingly provided lush photographs of rock formations that fit into their half-truths. He did throw in one sentence at the end of the article noting some reasons that mainstream scientists believe the Canyon is old.

But this hardly compensates for the pages of young earth verbiage, supported by targeted photos. Most nonscientist readers will take away the message that young earth creationism has all kinds of evidence on its side, and thus is perfectly respectable, and likely even true. As noted below, that does a serious disservice to these readers.

This degree of objectivity, however, seems unlikely. Olasky set out a laudable position in his December 19, column: Still others hold to gaps, frameworks, or other positions. That is all nonsense. Knowing what we now know about biological evolution and also the physical evolution of the cosmos does not obviate a Designer. It just pushes the design point back 14 billion years or so, and shows that such a Designer is a whole lot smarter than people used to think.

To create humans in an instant out of dirt — that is something that any jinn or Greek god might do. To fine-tune dozens of physical constants to produce a dynamic cosmos fit for life, now that is real class.

The discussion here has mainly contrasted popular Young Earth creationism based on a literal interpretation of Genesis six hour days, years ago with the scientific consensus of a 4.

Christians who are scientists generally accept evolution, and take a more flexible view of the biblical creation stories. This position is called theistic evolution or evolutionary creationism. In typical YE creationism it is claimed that, if properly interpreted, the physical features of the earth rock layers, etc. However, this is not a position that can be held with intellectual integrity. Thus, a star a million light years away was created along with the starlight occupying the line of sight from that star to earth, so that we can see that star now instead of waiting a million years for its light to reach us.

Adam and Eve were created looking as if they had been born twenty years earlier, with navels. The rock layers look as if they formed over the course of hundreds of millions of years. This global cover-up would entail reworking all the surface rock layers to erase traces of the Flood; rejiggering the human genome to make it look like the human race did not go through such a severe population bottleneck; transporting a bunch of marsupial mammals to Australia to make it look like they evolved in place on that isolated continent; creating levels of apparently human artifacts, complete with sequential carbon dates, to make it look like civilizations continued uninterrupted right through the Flood epoch c.

However, it makes God the author of deception on such a cosmic scale that we are left not knowing what is real. Maybe the whole universe, including underlined Bibles and us with our memories of things that never really happened, was all created just last night — with the apparent age viewpoint, you cannot tell.

While the evidence for evolution is compelling for almost everyone who actually engages it, to fully appreciate that evidence may take more scientific training than possessed by the average college graduate. Old Earth creationists vary in their interpretative stance towards Genesis 1. Rather, they are six successive days when God showed visions to Adam or Moses of what happened long before in creation.

This allows for acceptance of the findings of modern geology. Hugh Ross Reasons to Believe is a leading spokesman here. The days of Genesis 1 are correlated with key cosmic or geological events that occurred in the same order.

Because there is a thematic logic in the Genesis account, there is some remarkable correspondence between the Genesis days and what we know from study of the rocks. However, there are many discrepancies between the Genesis story and the physical evidence that cannot be reconciled while still doing justice to the plain meaning of the Hebrew text e.

Day-Age proponents try to overcome these discrepancies by making very elastic interpretations of the text. Its proponents would be classified mainly as anti-evolution, Old Earth creationists. Their activities are coordinated through the Discovery Institute in Seattle. ID seems to offer intellectual respectability for disbelief in evolution. We noted above their tactic of attacking outmoded versions of evolutionary theory in order to give the impression that the field is faltering.

Subsequent advances in genetic understanding have undercut his position, showing e. Dembski, followed by Meyer, has focused on information theory, claiming that information can only be originated and added to a system by an intelligent agent.

Instead, it must have been placed there by an intelligent agent. However, this ID claim that an increase in information needs an intelligent agent is disproven by the phenomenon of gene duplication [see STAN3 ].

Other fallacies in ID information theory are discussed here. Much of this process of development from one species to the next is reasonably well-understood. In contrast, the mechanism of how the first cells may have developed from chemicals is not understood with any clarity, but that is the subject matter of abiogenesis, not evolution. There is no scientific worth to ID. It is merely a sophisticated God-of-the-gaps argument.

The ID game-plan is to a look around for things that science does not yet have a detailed explanation for e. What exactly is that something? ID advocates are careful to not answer that question with specifics.

For instance, Meyer and others have claimed that natural processes cannot account for the relatively rapid proliferation of life-forms in the early Cambrian period, and so they invoke an Intelligent Agent. But nothing like that is forthcoming. ID takes cheap shots at the evolutionists who are working in the lab gathering real data and proposing specific mechanisms, but ID theorists offer no concrete, testable counter-proposals.

Although readily disproven, this was an honorable, courageous proposal. Nothing of substance has come from ID since. We have noted that a key tactic used by Young Earth creation advocates is to present only partial truths.

This essay has noted a number of obviously false claims made by YE creationists, where those creationists must have been exposed to the evidence which refutes them. Are they deliberately lying? That would be dismaying, but the reality is even more dismaying. They are genuinely unable to perceive the vast array of evidence which militates against their worldview. He had undergraduate training in physics, worked as a geo-physicist, and wrote technical articles for the YE creationist publication Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Morton realized that all the evidence against YE creationism had in fact been presented to him earlier, but his mind simply did not, and apparently could not, acknowledge it at the time.

This set up a vicious circle: This explains how educated YE creationists like Stephen Austin and Andrew Snelling can be good-willed and otherwise honest, yet promulgate teachings that are falsified by facts that they were certainly exposed to in the course of their geological studies.

This perceptual pathology is not a unique failing of YE creationists. Although YE creationist advocates are not unique in their perceptual blindness, the degree of their self-deception is notable.

The distinctives of a political conservative or liberal e. YE creationism and Flood geology, on the other hand, are completely undone by a thorough examination of features like radiogenic rock dating, erosional unconformities, the fossil record, and astronomical observations. As noted above, YE creationist advocates must engage in deeply deceitful maneuvers to evade the implications of physical reality. Old-earth anti-evolutionists also shut their eyes to the full facts, but this is more excusable, since the evidence for evolution is more subtle than the proofs for an old earth.

A method of discerning which party is more likely to be correct on a controversial issue is to note who acknowledges the most facts or factors. They further note that where intermediate fossils are available, they sometimes seem to be out of order: Evolutionists accept all these partial truths about the fossil record, but their case is strengthened by acknowledging a wider array of factors.

A celebrated example of the incompleteness of the fossil record is the Coelacanth fishes. Fossilized fishes of this order are found in rocks from to 65 million years ago. Their fossil record ends 65 million years ago, which suggested that they went extinct at the same time as the dinosaurs and big sea reptiles. However, since , several coelacanths have been caught in the Indian Ocean.

The modern coelacanths are not identical to the fossilized species, but they are clearly of the same order. Acknowledging all this yields the logical conclusion: This belief is supported by the fact that with each passing decade, new intermediate fossils e.

A logical implication of the inherent sparseness of the fossil record is that when a fossil of a species is found and dated to some particular date, it is highly likely that this species, or a related species, also lived million of years before and after this date.

The implicit assumption of anti-evolutionists is that the known fossil record constitutes a fairly complete account of all the species that ever lived. This assumption is shown by the facts to be wildly incorrect, but the anti-evolutionists simply cannot acknowledge that. This is a typical example of self-deception in order to maintain a core belief.

There is no mystery about what drives YE creationists to their misrepresentations of science. They hold to a literal interpretation of the Genesis account of the creation, where the earth is shaped and filled with life in six days, around years ago. Thus, modern geology seems like an assault on the Word of God on which they base their lives. Students who have been taught that their eternal well-being may depend on rejecting modern science cannot be expected to readily take in the evidence for an old earth and for evolution, for reasons described above.

These students deserve a chance to be released from the mental bondage imposed by well-meaning parents or pastors. This release can occur if they are exposed to other points of view on Bible interpretation. They need to know that it is possible to hold to the core values of their faith while embracing the full range of truth about the physical universe.

The key historic statements of the essence of Christianity, e. Solid Rock Lectures has a speaking ministry, bringing insights from geology to evangelical venues. Dogged adherence to a literal interpretation seems like an admirable position, standing against attacks by infidels on the trustworthiness of the Bible. It is courageous to a degree, but unfortunately it is based on deep ignorance of the nature of the Bible, and is simply incorrect.

YE creationists and most anti-evolutionists fail to take into account two factors:. Peter wrote that prophets spoke of the sufferings and glory of Christ. Paul stated that the Scriptures were given II Tim 3: Nothing here about authoritatively teaching geology or biology.

Modern commentators try to tap-dance around this, but all ancient and medieval interpreters understood the firmament to be a solid dome.

The ancient mid-eastern worldview shared by both Old and New Testaments included a relatively young earth and fixity of species. God could have corrected this ancient science, but chose not to. These statements can seem like the beginning of a slippery slope down to complete dismissal of biblical content. One major factor to consider is literary genre. The New Testament presents the key Jesus-events as being well-known and well-grounded in history. The gospels are written by eye-witnesses or from interviews with eye-witnesses.

Paul notes in Acts The apostles spent the rest of their lives spreading the Christian message, and in most cases suffered grisly deaths as a result of their proclamation of the Resurrection. There is no reason to doubt the historicity of the Resurrection, unless one has a prejudice against miracles in general.

In contrast, the Genesis creation account is not eyewitness attestation. The writer just starts right in telling the creation story. Unlike the New Testament narrative, the Genesis creation story is greatly at odds with known history.

Conservative scholars such as Meredith Kline and Henri Blocher consider that the two triads of the six creation days in Genesis 1 indicate a thematic, rather than chronological framework for revealing the creative acts of God.

The earth was initially Gen. There is a pleasing, symmetrical logic to all this. In this view, the sequencing of the accomplishments in Genesis 1 is not expected to correspond to the actual physical order of events. This may make us squirm when we first consider it, but it is plain cold logic. All the surrounding pagan cultures had creation stories, which explained the observed physical world in terms of the machinations of their gods and goddesses.

The Israelites would have been at a disadvantage without their own version of origins. If the folks in c. YE creationism attempts to evade this trilemma by staking out a fourth position: As discussed at length above, this position can only be held by selective, deceitful treatment of the facts. Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness.

In telling his parables, he was simply continuing the divine mode of communication already established in the Old Testament. But there is nothing in Scripture bearing upon biblical inspiration and revelation which implies that God would not communicate His point in terms of the popular and sometimes errant scientific ideas and concepts of the people to whom He was speaking.

Other Christians believe that there is some underlying historical event behind the Eden story. For instance, perhaps God picked one couple as the first humans that He revealed Himself to in a personal way, and made covenant with. The responses of these two representative people could have far-reaching repercussions.

This would be similar to the case of Abraham, where God picked out him of the whole Middle East and made covenant with him. This calls for careful thought, not defensive pronouncements. Traditionalists are offended at the thought that we came from monkeys, but the reality is even more humiliating. We come not from monkeys, but from single-celled eggs. Every human alive today came into existence as a fertilized egg, like a fertilized chimpanzee egg but with slight differences in the sequences of nucleotides along the strands of DNA.

This raises a host of questions:. Is the unfertilized egg a single, microscopic cell the image of God? Does it become the image of God the instant that a sperm cell delivers the other half of the DNA to this single cell? After the fertilized cell has divided a number of times to form a hollow sphere? When the heart first beats, but there is no real consciousness? Which genes in our DNA were mutated to make us into sinners? If an egg from a donor mother is fertilized in vitro and implanted in a second woman, is original sin transmitted through the donor mother or the birth mother?

Until the answers to these questions are clarified, there is no place for dogmatic pronouncements on evolution being incompatible with a Biblical view of man.

We, today, are all made from chemicals starting from egg and sperm , under the superintending providence of God. This is true of all humans now living, and their parents and grandparents. Each of us has plenty of sin that needs forgiveness and redemption. Jesus never mentioned Adam or the Fall. Only in a legalistic disputation with the Jews did he meet them on their turf and use quotes from Genesis to correct a misunderstanding of divorce. The discussion above explains the nonfactual creation narrative in Old Testament, but what about Paul and Jesus, who seem to affirm that narrative?

Perhaps the greatest concern that Christians have is: This is a valid question. There are valid answers, but it takes some thought and patience to work through them. The existence of hundreds of denominations and smaller sects within just the world of Bible-believing American churches proves that there is no single clear set of interpretations for the Bible.

However uncomfortable it is, we cannot avoid the necessity of thinking, and making interpretative judgments. This includes the area of creation, evolution, and scriptural inerrancy, as well as other doctrines and moral practices.

A fundamentalist who has not amputated his body parts that enable lusting, in flagrant disregard of the literal meaning of Matt. God gave Paul revelation. What was its content? It was that Jesus is the Son of God Gal 1: Paul was not omniscient see Acts He acknowledges that not everything he writes is an oracle of God; some is simply his opinion I Cor 7: He does not claim that every statement in every letter is absolute truth.

It fell to later generations of Christians to work out the implications of the gospel in these areas. In I Cor We therefore expect him to draw on that tradition to illustrate and support his teachings on doctrine e. The fact that he does exactly that should be no surprise and no cause for alarm.

Jesus appeared to likewise assume the historicity of the creation account, which we now know is not supported by the physical evidence. There are several ways to deal with this. One reasonable explanation is that, like Paul, Jesus was not omniscient in the days of his flesh.

This goes to the heart of how much he emptied himself at his incarnation. While he might receive words of knowledge from the Father as needed for ministry to others and to guide his critical decisions, there are indications that he was not omniscient. There is his clear statement in Mat. Also, a plain reading of Mark 5: If the Father did not reveal 21 st century science to him, Jesus, like Paul, would be operating in the same ancient physical worldview as his hearers and would take Genesis as literally true.

Also, it would not compromise the authority of his teachings. He did not teach that Genesis was literally true, he merely assumed it. There is a big difference. This is another example of accommodation of revelation to the limitations of the hearers. Interestingly, Jesus himself remarks on an instance of this sort of accommodation in regards to the Old Testament law on divorce in Deut Jesus accepted the whole Law as inspired by God, yet he explicitly set this command aside.

This along with other instances where he contradicts the Law demonstrates that Jesus did not believe in biblical inerrancy in the simplistic, absolute sense that some evangelicals promote. Even more relevant for our purpose is the explanation he gives for why he sets aside this law: In this one sentence [Matt.

Hence, some passages of Scripture are errant. You search the scriptures, because you think in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness to me; yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. Jesus treated the whole Old Testament as inspired and authoritative, yet not as literally inerrant. How can this be? Certain Pauline passages approach that standard of systematic theology, but in general the Scriptures require human interpretation e.

Thus, Jesus and the early church were free to contradict the revealed Law of Moses, after that Law had served its purpose for earlier generations. Jesus was nearly always speaking to Jews who completely believed the Old Testament creation story. Often, they were debating him based on the Scriptures. It was therefore entirely appropriate for him to answer from those very Scriptures, and to draw on them for illustrations.

In Act 17 he quotes Greek poets to the Athenians, and he quotes Greek sayings in several of his letters. These sayings reinforce his point on grounds that the other persons could accept.

Modern preachers do the same with sermon illustrations drawn from the Chronicles of Narnia or some modern movie. Jesus employed a range of rhetorical devices to communicate his revolutionary concepts. His statements that the mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds Mat. Consistency demands that we likewise look past his literal treatment of the Genesis stories and focus on the points he was making in those teachings and debates.

We have outlined a case here for non-literal interpretation of the biblical creation narratives, but cannot deal with every question. A scientifically literate citizenry, able to engage judiciously with new ideas, is essential to progress and employment. This is especially true now: This can only hinder the sharing of the gospel. That represents millions of dollars a year diverted away from sharing the actual gospel of Jesus Christ. Another waste is the time and energy that thousands of bright, concerned Christians pour into reading, writing, and blogging to promote this falsehood.

The right response is good reasoning, not bad science. Richard Dawkins and his ilk make the claim that modern science somehow disproves God or renders Him irrelevant. Instead of challenging the fundamental illogic of that reasoning, ignorant Christians are taken in by it, and thus are panicked into trying to prove that modern science itself is wrong.

While most Christian adults can remain happily scientifically illiterate, waves of Christian young people each year are forced to engage with the reality of biology and geology in high school and college classes. Many of them come to realize that their trusted Christian parents and teachers have misrepresented the case regarding evolution. They find that evolution is in fact true. For every YE creationist who suffers professional harassment for his beliefs, there are probably five evangelical scientists who suffer personal hostility and suspicion from their Christian friends and family members for not toeing the anti-evolution line.

Evangelical scientists in the U. The battle over the science of evolution is over, for anyone capable of comprehending the facts. With each passing year, the linkage becomes more clearly established between human thoughts and decisions, and the firing of specific groups or networks of neurons in the brain.

Theists can make valid philosophical arguments for the existence of a Platonic realm of abstract concepts that cannot be fully reduced to the material, yet if every thought we have corresponds to electrochemical reactions proceeding according to natural laws, where does that leave free will and individual responsibility? Devising satisfying answers will require the input of theists who are fully informed of the science. Left to their own devices here, theologians will likely take their stand on principles that will eventually be falsified.

God should be worshipped both in spirit and in truth, and a correct understanding of creation is part of that. A fuller understanding of the complexities and history of the universe can lead to a deeper appreciation for the wisdom, patience and other qualities of the Creator, as discussed by Jennifer Wiseman. Also affected is our view of evil and suffering.

However, the facts show that life as we know it, red in tooth and claw, was going on long before humans came on the scene. This calls for a different response. That was until August of Jenkins et. In other words, the decay rates show annual changes that closely reflect the Earth's distance from the Sun see illustration.

If magnetic fluxuations or other influencing forces are strong enough, radiometric decay rates could be much more significantly effected. In short, the assumption that decay rates are immune to outside influences isn't as solid as it once appeared to be. For example, if there are equal amounts of parent and daughter isotopes, then one half-life has passed.

If there are three times as many daughter isotopes as parent, then two half-lives have passed, and so on. Most minerals, which contain radioactive isotopes, are in igneous rocks.

The majority of scientists today assume that the dates they give indicate the time the magma cooled. This also assumes that there was no initial daughter isotopes contained in the magma at the time of cooling. The assumption is that at least a great majority of the isotope present was the parent isotope. This parent isotope then degraded to the daughter isotope over time.

Consider the following statement by Dalrymple, a well-known geologist: This is because 40 Ar is an inert gas that does not combine chemically with any other element and so escapes easily from rocks when they are heated.

Thus, while a rock is molten, the 40 Ar formed by the decay of 40 K escapes from the liquid. So, according to Dalrymple, K-Ar or Ar-Ar are the only methods that have little or no concern for the presence of initial daughter isotopes. This means that all the other radioisotope-dating methods excepting isochron methods are brought into serious question. The reason for this is because unless the initial ratio of parent to daughter isotope is known, the current ratio would be worthless as a means of determining elapsed time.

A rock cannot be said to be millions or billions of years old if there is no way of knowing what the original composition of the rock was at the time that it was formed. The assumption for the K-Ar method is that all argon escapes at the time of rock formation because argon is a gas while potassium is not.

Likewise, the other non-isochron dating methods, such as uranium-lead, also fall short because who is to say wh en the "zero date" was when there was only parent isotope and no daughter? Because of this problem, it might be a significant error to simply assume that all original isotopes present in a given rock were parent isotopes. This assumption has been shown to be faulty. Lets now consider how fossils are dated with many of these methods, such as the potassium-argon method. The mineralized fossils themselves are not directly datable by radiometric techniques.

The sedimentary rock that buried them is also not datable. It is assumed then that the fossil is as old as the igneous rock fragment that it is buried with. Aside from the zero-date problems noted above, one might consider the possibility that the fossil might not be as old as the sediment that buried it in the first place. For example, lets say that my pet dog dies.

I decide to bury it in the back yard. Is the dog as old as the dirt that I buried it in? Likewise, who is to say that some fossils were not buried in sedimentary material that was weathered from significantly more ancient formations? Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon Dating.

Since Potassium-Argon and Argon-Argon dating techniques are the most common and are considered, even by geologists, to be among the most accurate of all the radioisotope dating methods, lets consider these in particular detail. Argon is a noble gas. The main isotopes of argon in terrestrial systems are 40 Ar Naturally occurring 40 K decays to stable 40 Ar Minerals are dated by measurement of the concentration of potassium, and the amount of radiogenic 40 Ar that has accumulated.

For example, if 40 Ar is lost by diffusion while the rock cooled, the age-dates represent the time elapsed since the rock cooled sufficiently for diffusive losses to be insignificant. Or, if excess 40 Ar is present in the rock, the calculated age-dates are too old. Radioactive 39 Ar decays back to 39 K by beta emission with a half-life of years, but the decay is slow compared to the analysis time and can be ignored Faure, How is this calibrated?

Also, even if the argon-argon dating method does eliminate the "contamination" problem, it does not solve the problem of original argon. Did the clock get reset to zero when the volcano erupted? Or, was there some argon trapped in the rocks originally? It must be first calibrated against a sample of "known age". Recent testing of volcanic material from Mt.

Calibration Against Pliny the Younger was written by P. Renne tested Ar-Ar dating by checking it against the 79 A. The true age was years. The test was off only 7 years. The conclusions of Renne and his team read as follows: Of note however is that this test was not double blinded, and the number of such tests is not statistically significant as far as scientific analysis is concerned.

Although interesting, it is basically a case study report, and as such it has very little scientific weight as far as statistical predictability. In the first place, I am not primarily concerned with dating meteorites, or Precambrian rocks. I will begin this section with a short discussion from Andrew Snelling, an associate professor of geology in El Cajon, California. However, it is well established that volcanic rocks e.

If so, then the K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dating" of crustal rocks would be similarly questionable. In other experiments muscovite was synthesized from a colloidal gel under similar temperatures and Ar pressures, the resultant muscovite retaining up to 0. This is approximately 2, times as much Ar as is found in natural muscovite. Thus under certain conditions Ar can be incorporated into minerals which are supposed to exclude Ar when they crystallize.

Thus all K-Ar and Ar-Ar "dates" of crustal rocks are questionable, as well as fossil "dates" calibrated by them. In summary, many scientists assume that since argon is a gas, all of it should have escaped from the lava before it cooled. Therefore, all the 40 Ar in the rock should be the result of decay from potassium.

Based on the measured potassium, argon, and the decay rate, they calculate an age. That is why it does not matter how long the magma was in the volcano before it erupted.

They believe that when the volcano erupts, all the 40 Ar escapes, and the atomic clock gets reset to zero. If all the argon escaped from hot lava of volcanoes that erupted long ago, then all the argon should escape from the hot lava of volcanoes that erupt in modern times too. But modern lava does have 40 Ar in it. This is known as the "excess argon problem". Scientists are well aware of this problem and use various calibration methods to "correct" for this problem.

However, how are these calibration methods established? Upon what basis are they validated? Calibration of the Argon-Argon Dating Method. Let me emphasize again that this dating method is a relative dating method.

In other words, it must be calibrated relative to a different dating method before it can be used to date materials relative to that other dating method. This same problem exists for all other relative radiometric dating techniques. Fission track dating is a radioisotopic dating method that depends on the tendency of uranium Uranium to undergo spontaneous fission as well as the usual decay process.

The large amount of energy released in the fission process ejects the two nuclear fragments into the surrounding material, causing damage paths called fission tracks. These tracks can be made visible under light microscopy by etching with an acid solution so they can then be counted. The usefulness of this as a dating technique stems from the tendency of some materials to lose their fission-track records when heated, thus producing samples that contain fission-tracks produced since they last cooled down.

The useful age range of this technique is thought to range from years to million years before present BP , although error estimates are difficult to assess and rarely given. Generally it is thought to be most useful for dating in the window between 30, and , years BP.

A problem with fission-track dating is that the rates of spontaneous fission are very slow, requiring the presence of a significant amount of uranium in a sample to produce useful numbers of tracks over time. Additionally, variations in uranium content within a sample can lead to large variations in fission track counts in different sections of the same sample. Because of such potential errors, most forms of fission track dating use a form of calibration or "comparison of spontaneous and induced fission track density against a standard of known age.

The principle involved is no different from that used in many methods of analytical chemistry, where comparison to a standard eliminates some of the more poorly controlled variables.

In the zeta method, the dose, cross section, and spontaneous fission decay constant, and uranium isotope ratio are combined into a single constant. Of course, this means that the fission track dating method is not an independent method of radiometric dating, but is dependent upon the reliability of other dating methods.

The reason for this is also at least partly due to the fact that the actual rate of fission track production. Some experts suggest using a rate constant of 6.

Wagner, Letters to Nature , June 16, In other words, the actual rate of fission track production isn't really known, nor is it known if this rate can be affected by various concentrations of U or other physical factors. For example, all fission reactions produce neutrons. What happens if fission from some other radioactive element, like U or some other radioisotope, produces tracks?

Might not these trackways be easily confused with those created by fission of U ? The human element is also important here. Fission trackways have to be manually counted. This is problematic since interpreting what is and what is not a true trackway isn't easy.

Geologists themselves recognize the problem of mistaking non-trackway imperfections as fission tracks. For example, it is recommended that one choose samples with as few vesicles and microlites as possible.

But, how is one to do this if they are so easily confused with true trackways? Fortunately, there are a few other "hints". True tracks are straight, never curved. They also tend to show characteristic ends that demonstrate "younging" of the etched track. True tracks are thought to form randomly and have a random orientation. Therefore, trackways that show a distribution pattern tend not to be trusted as being "true". Certain color and size patterns within a certain range are also used as helpful hints.

This is yet another reason why calibration with other dating techniques is used in fission track dating. It just isn't very reliable or accurate by itself. And, it gets even worse. Fairly recently, Raymond Jonckheere and Gunther Wagner American Minerologist, published results showing that there are two kinds of real fission trackways that had "not been identified previously. As it turns out, the "stable tracks do not shorten significantly even when heated to temperatures well above those normally sufficient for complete annealing of fission tracks.

The tracks through fluid are also interesting. They are "excessively long". This is because a fission fragment traveling through a fluid inclusion does so without appreciable energy loss. Such features, if undetected, "can distort the temperature-time paths constructed on the basis of confined fission-track-length measurements.

These problems have resulted in several interesting contradictions, despite calibration. For example, Naeser and Fleischer Harvard University showed that, depending upon the calibration method chosen, the calculated age of a given rock from Cerro de Mercado, Mexico in this case could be different from each other by a factor of " sixty or more " - - "which give geologically unreasonable ages.

In addition, published data concerning the length of fission tracks and the annealing of minerals imply that the basic assumptions used in an alternative procedure, the length reduction-correction method, are also invalid for many crystal types and must be approached with caution unless individually justified for a particular mineral. No wonder the authors recommend only going with results that do not provide "geologically unreasonable ages".

Another example of this sort of aberrancy comes in the form of glass globs known as "tektites". Tektites are thought to be produced when a meteor impacts the Earth. When the massive impact creates a lot of heat, which melts the rocks of the Earth and send them hurtling through the atmosphere at incredible speed. As these fragments travel through the atmosphere, they become superheated and malleable as they melt to a read-hot glow, and are formed and shaped as they fly along.

It is thought that the date of the impact can be dated by using various radiometric dating methods to date the tektites. For example, Australian tektites known as australites show K-Ar and fission track ages clustering around , years. The problem is that their stratigraphic ages show a far different picture. Edmund Gill, of the National Museum of Victoria, Melbourne, while working the Port Campbell area of western Victoria uncovered 14 australite samples in situ above the hardpan soil zone.

This zone had been previously dated by the radiocarbon method at seven locales, the oldest dating at only 7, radiocarbon years Gill Charcoal from the same level as that containing specimen 9 yielded a radiocarbon age of 5, years. The possibility of transport from an older source area was investigated and ruled out. Since the "Port Campbell australites include the best preserved tektites in the world Aboriginal implements have been discovered in association with the australites.

A fission-track age of , years and a K-Ar age of , years for these same australites unavoidably clashes with the obvious stratigraphic and archaeological interpretation of just a few thousand years.

Commenting on the above findings by Lovering and his associates, the editors of the book, Tektites, state that, "in this paper they have built an incontrovertible case for the geologically young age of australite arrival on earth" Barnes and Barnes , p. The argument that various radiometric dating methods agree with each other isn't necessarily true. Here we have the K-Ar and fission track dating methods agreeing with each other, but disagreeing dramatically with the radiocarbon and historical dating methods.

These findings suggest that, at least as far as tektites are concerned, the complete loss of 40 Ar and therefore the resetting of the radiometric clock may not be valid Clark et al. It has also been shown that different parts of the same tektite have significantly different K-Ar ages McDougall and Lovering, This finding suggests a real disconnect when it comes to the reliability of at least two of the most commonly used radiometric dating techniques. In short, it seems like fission track dating is tenuous a best - even when given every benefit of the doubt.

It is just too subjective and too open to pitfalls in interpretation to be used as any sort of independent measure of estimating elapsed time. There is a methodological problem connected with the manner in which geologists infer the argon-retention abilities of different minerals.

Concerning the suitability of different minerals for K-Ar dating, Faure , p. By comparing the K-Ar dates yielded by such minerals with the expected ones. Thus the correctness of the geologic time scale is assumed in deciding which minerals are suitable for dating.

For example, concerning the use of glauconies for K-Ar dating, Faure , p. Therefore, K-Ar dates of 'glauconite' have often been regarded as minimum dates that underestimate the depositional age of their host.

It is also interesting that Faure , pp. However, if these "known" ages are incorrect, then fission track dating that is based on these ages is also incorrect. Thus fission track dating is not an independent test that helps to verify the accuracy of other tests. The result is that radiometric dating in general is in danger of being based on circular reasoning.

Inconsistencies and other Problems with various Radiometric Dating Techniques. Raul Esperante teamed up with Dr. This formation is approximately meters thick and consists of many layers of sedimentary rock.

Yet, within essentially all of these layers are hundreds of very well preserved fossil whales. In fact, many of them are so well preserved that their baleen is still intact and attached in the usual position that baleen is attached in living whales. Usually baleen detaches within a few days or even hours after death. Some of the fossilized whales and dolphins also have preserved remains of skin outlines around the fossilized bones. The skeletons themselves are generally well articulated and show no evidence of scavenging or significant decay.

The fossil whales must have died and been completely buried by diatomaceous sediment within a very short time of death no scavenging, decay, significant disarticulation, or loss of baleen. The layers are very smooth without significant erosion or unevenness to suggest the passage of time between layers. There is no significant bioturbation very few tunnels or evidence of trace fossils or digging within the sedimentary layers that would be expected given long periods of time between the formation of subsequent layers.

There are finely preserved shards of volcanic glass within all of the layers that have very sharp edges without the usual rounding that would be expected due to the relatively rapid ability of water to dissolve silica if long periods of time took place during the build up of these sedimentary layers. These layers were deposited in shallow seas with evidence of flowing currents, which works against the potential counter-hypothesis that these layers were formed under anoxic conditions.

Cosmogenic nuclides are isotopes that are produced by interaction of cosmic rays with the nucleus of the atom. The various isotopes produced have different half lives see table. Cosmogenic dating using these isotopes are becoming a popular way to date the time of surface exposure of rocks and minerals to cosmic radiation.

While the idea is fairly straightforward, there are just a few problems with this dating method. To illustrate this problem, consider that 3 H dating has been used to establish the theory that the driest desert on Earth, Coastal Range of the Atacama desert in northern Chile which is 20 time drier than Death Valley has been without any rain or significant moisture of any kind for around 25 million years.

The only problem with this theory is that recently investigators have discovered fairly extensive deposits of very well preserved animal droppings associated with grasses as well as human-produced artifacts like arrowheads and the like. Radiocarbon dating of these finding indicate very active life in at least semiarid conditions within the past 11, years - a far cry from 25 million years. As it turns out, cosmogenic isotope dating has a host of problems.

The production rate is a huge issue. Production rates depend upon several factors to include "latitude, altitude, surface erosion rates, sample composition, depth of sample, variations of cosmic and solar ray flux, inclusion of other radioactive elements and their contribution to target nucleotide production, variations in the geomagnetic field, muon capture reactions, various shielding effects, and, of course, the reliability of the calibration methods used.

So many variables become somewhat problematic. This problem has been highlighted by certain studies that have evaluated the published production rates of certain isotopes which have been published by different groups of scientists. At least regarding 36 Cl in particular, there has been "no consistent pattern of variance seen between each respective research group's production rates. In short, "different analytical approaches at different localities were used to work out 36 Cl production rates, which are discordant.

So, what are the possible explanations for this "discordance"? Uncertainty in the independent chronology used to determine the age of surfaces used to calibrate a Cl production rate ex.

There are 3 different latitude-altitude scaling systems in use worked out by different researchers. Whole rock analysis vs. It seems that the whole rock analysis method and the resulting optimization problem may underestimate the significance of other production pathways, i. Fe and Ti spallation? Doesn't give one a great deal of confidence in the unbiased reliability of cosmogenic isotopic dating techniques - does it?

Different Methods for Dating the Himalayan Mountains. The Himalayan mountains are said by most modern scientists to have started their uplift or orogeny some 50 million years ago.

However, recently in Yang Wang et. Dalrymple's work early work on 26 historic lava flows showed that many of them had excess argon and were not set to zero at the eruption of the volcano. The following is the data from these tests: If the present data are representative, argon of slightly anomalous composition can be expected in approximately one out of three volcanic rocks.

Dalrymple may have a point. It seems like rocks dating within one or two million years cannot be accurately dated by K-Ar techniques just because of the relatively wide ranges of error. However, can rocks that are tens or hundreds of millions of years be more accurately dated? Perhaps, if these rocks were in fact closed systems and were not subject to contamination by external argon.

Investigators also have found that excess 40 Ar is trapped in the minerals within lava flows. The obvious conclusion most investigators have reached is that the excess 40 Ar had to be present in the molten lavas when extruded, which then did not completely degas as they cooled, the excess 40 Ar becoming trapped in constituent minerals and the rock fabrics themselves.

Two statements hint at an attempt to build a temple: But the rebellious people under the leadership of King Nimrod lacked real priesthood keys and the authority to build temples; they lacked the divine power to make sacred covenants in the Lord's name. Other parallels have been made between the tower of Babel and the Lord's temple, both in antiquity and in our times, helping Latter-day Saints, more than any other people on earth, to understand what those in Babel were vainly attempting to duplicate.

The tower of Babel had a momentous impact on the events of world history, occurring not too long after the Flood and immediately before the confusion of tongues. The confusion of tongues came as a curse from the Lord because of the wicked people's attempt to build the counterfeit temple, or tower, as Moses explained Gen. Before the tower, "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech" Gen. The curse, in addition, resulted in the scattering of the people "upon the face of the whole earth," a phrase given three different times for emphasis see Gen.

The Akkadian or Babylonian word babel means "gate of God. For some in the modern world, the historicity of the tower of Babel story, as with the Flood, is often discounted. One modern school of thought considers the account to be nothing more than an "artful parable" and an "old tale. Further, we have the second witness of the Book of Mormon. The title page of the Book of Mormon explains that the book of Ether "is a record of the people of Jared, who were scattered at the time the Lord confounded the language of the people, when they were building a tower to get to heaven.

The stories of the tower of Babel and the Flood present a number of doctrinal principles and applications for Latter-day Saints today. With reference to the tower of Babel, we find the following interesting observations and parallels for our day:.

Every time we hear foreign tongues including English , we can be reminded that at one time "the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech" Gen. The hundreds of languages on the earth today stand as a witness that there existed long ago a tower of Babel in the land of Shinar.

Yet in spite of the confusion of tongues so long ago, the gospel of Jesus Christ is reversing the effects of Babel. In the context of a temple dedication, Elder Spencer W. There having been a Babel, it is in reverse now. The confusion of Babel is being overcome. All of them heard the voice of the prophet of the Lord. Everyone of them heard his message in his own tongue. Everyone of them heard the ordinances of the gospel, the ordinances of the temple, in his own tongue.

The confusion of Babel is in reverse. Specifically, Babylon represents any people who "have strayed from mine [the Lord's] ordinances, and have broken mine everlasting covenant;. In antiquity, Babylon attempted to imitate Zion, attempting to replace the temple with its great tower, and Babylon's false gods were substitutes for the Lord God.

Unfortunately, Babylon has not changed in time. Thus, although there are many in our day who consider the accounts of the Flood and tower of Babel to be fiction, Latter-day Saints affirm their reality. We rejoice in the many truths and lessons to be learned from these two accounts, as well as from all the stories of the Old Testament.

Languages are continuously evolving over long periods of time, do not diversify suddenly, and can be traced back at least 12, years, which pre-dates the Tower of Babel. Divergent traditions are also revealed when we consider the bizarre editing surrounding the story of the Tower of Babel. First the peoples of the earth are described, with their various foreign languages. These are the sons of Japheth in their lands, each with his own language, by their families, in their nations…These are the sons of Ham, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations…These are the sons of Shem, by their families, their languages, their lands, and their nations.

The story of the Tower of Babel begins with the following incongruous statement: And as men migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: It should be obvious that we are faced with an 'either - or' situation here, in that the two accounts are mutually exclusive, and it is particularly bizarre to find such a statement about the Tower of Babel, and the single language of the earth immediately following a separate tradition describing the many languages of the earth.

Archived copy from - Link is here. It is the science of linguistics that I shall focus upon now, especially since I have been active in linguistic analysis for more than a decade and a half. The story of the Tower of Babel Genesis As with other explanations given in the Bible, it is nonscientific, and the real explanation given by science does away with the supernatural. The reason why there are so many languages today is quite a natural reason: The evolution of language is not the same as the evolution of biological organisms; the latter is Darwinian, whereas the former is Lamarckian, dependent upon acquisition of inherited characteristics.

But aside from this significant difference, languages branching out is as proved as the speciation of living organisms. We have the prominent example of a single common language, Latin, branching out into Italian, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Romanian-now all mutually unintelligible languages or nearly so. For Latin branching out into the Romance languages, we have a historical record; for other languages, such as the Germanic languages, we can infer a common ancestor through systematic comparison of the descendant languages.

Similarities in core vocabulary such as family relations and numerals , grammatical correspondences and sound laws are instrumental in determining common descent.

For example, within English, German and Swedish, we have the following correspondence of the internal vowel:. Such a comparison is striking already, but in order to determine a relationship between the languages more certainly, it is useful to go back to the earliest forms of those languages and see if the correspondence still holds true:. Thus we can conclude, on this basis and on many other comparisons, that English, German and Swedish were, far back in time, a single language.

By this method we can also conclude that such diverse languages of today as English, Italian, Russian, Irish, Lithuanian, Persian and Hindi share a common ancestor, known as Proto-Indo-European.

So it is that a single language can branch out into many different, now mutually unintelligible, languages. If so, then what need is there for the story of the Tower of Babel?

Naturalistic evolution of languages is enough to account for the linguistic diversity of today, and the supernatural hypothesis "God did it" adds nothing to our understanding. The creationist may counter that, above the level of Indo-European, Semitic, Sino-Tibetan and other ancestral languages, we know of no common ancestor.

That is correct; but that does not make the story of the Tower of Babel true. According to the Biblical story, first came the mutually unintelligible languages, and after that the speakers parted geographically. Thus the story can be falsified on two counts: A pidgin is a minimal linguistic subset used by speakers who cannot understand one another's language.

For example, during World War II, when American allies invaded Italy, an Italo-English pidgin formed in which all the verbs were invariably conjugated in the infinitive, with mixed vocabulary; such that "I break" would be "io breakare" in the pidgin.

That is the salient feature of pidgins: If speakers of the various ancestral languages had been in the same area when their languages branched, they would try to communicate using pidgins, and their resultant languages would be pidginised, much as English was when invaders from Scandinavia and Normandy came that accounts for the relative simplicity of English grammar, such as logical gender instead of grammatical gender. Instead, what we see in the ancestral languages is staggering grammatical complexity: Proto-Indo-European had at least eight noun cases, and Proto-Semitic at least three, not to mention the elaborate verb systems of both languages.

Thus the story of the Tower of Babel is proven to be historically false. Is there any historical information as to what language was used prior to the historical incident of the Tower of Babel which is when languages diversified? No, because the " Tower of Babel" incident, as such, probably did not occur in historical times.

Although linguists assume that people did speak one language, the divergence would have begun in the ICE AGES before humanity had even begun to think about building cities and towers. Since the divergence happened millennia before written records existed, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the structure of the "first language.

According to descriptions in the Bible, the earliest era the "Tower of Babel" a "ziggurat" could have been built would have been the Sumerian Era. But the records show that even by then Sumerian was significantly different from its neighboring languages such as Egyptian. Based on our knowledge of how languages change, such as Latin evolving into French, Italian, Portuguese over 2 millennia, linguists are pretty sure that Egyptian and Sumerian had diverged a long time ago, many millennia before the Sumerians founded their cities.

If we assume that the story in Gen One, the event took place in Shinar, at Babylon in particular vv. Two, the event involved the building of a city with a tower vv. Three, the tower was constructed of baked brick v. Four, the mortar used was asphalt v. Five, the tower was very probably a ziggurat v. When we employ these five facts to date the building of the tower of Babel, we discover from archaeological data that the event occurs too late in history to be the origin of all languages on earth.

As we have seen, if Gen. The problem which arises is that when Gen. It is quite evident from archaeology, however, that this is not the case.

Just as scientists can explain the beautiful phenomenon of the rainbow by using the laws of optics which undoubtedly existed long before Noah's time , so linguistic scientists can show that the many languages of mankind existed long before the period to which the Tower of Babel can be assigned Mormons believe the Jaredites made their journey to America about B.

No reputable linguistic scholar today accepts the Tower of Babel story as an explanation for the multiplicity of languages, for their origins, or for the date of their origins.

The simple fact is that there are writings in many parts of the ancient world China, Mesopotamia, Egypt , in widely different languages, dating from a thousand years before the supposed time of the Tower. This uncontroverted fact shows that the Babel story is only a myth. But it is not only the languages of all the world that supposedly originated at the Tower of Babel, but also all the peoples of the world Gen In other words, in order to accept the story of the Tower as literal and historical, one must believe that there were no other peoples on earth at the time.

Such a belief is contrary to everything that we know about the early periods of human history. The last surviving Jaredite see Omni 1: To account for 28 generations between B.

To make the "confusion of tongues" a thousand years or more! Notice also that among the "Jaredite" generations listed in Ether 1 are two Hebrew names, "Aaron" 1: One must ask how such Hebrew names appeared in America, when the Jaredites did not speak Hebrew, but rather a language which had not been confounded. They can read it as allegory, an object lesson about human pride. But Mormons must and do accept it as literal and historical. The explanation of an Egyptian hypocephalus that was part of the scrolls says:.

Also described is a hierarchy of heavenly bodies, earth, moon, and sun, with different revolutions and time, where the slowest-revolving body is Kolob whose day is years:. Kolob was after the manner of the Lord, according to its times and seasons in the revolutions thereof; that one revolution was a day unto the Lord, after his manner of reckoning, it being one thousand years according to the time appointed unto that whereon thou standest.

This is the reckoning of the Lord's time, according to the reckoning of Kolob. The planet which is the lesser light With the discovery of quantum mechanics, scientists soon learned that the sun's source of energy is internal, and not external. The Sun shines, as we have seen, because of thermonuclear fusion. It does not get its light from any other star.

And there is no star called Kolob that gives light to the stars, either. They all shine by nuclear processes, burning the nuclear fuel in their cores.

For example, LDS doctrine regarding astronomy is permeated with references to time being measured, or "reckoned" according to a star's or planet's rate of rotation. Furthermore, this "reckoning of time" is a prime distinguisher in terms of "greatness. Rates of rotation are largely arbitrary, and of little comment or concern from a fundamental point of view.

There is little correlation between a planet's rate of rotation and either its size or mass. Furthermore, for bodies like the sun, the question makes no sense at all because the sun, being a ball of plasma, rotates at different rates, depending on the distance from the center of the sun, and the latitude.

In other words, the Sun does not have a well-defined rate of rotation. This is true for other stars as well; so talking about their rates of rotation as if this was some sort of special defining attribute makes little sense and is of little fundamental interest or value in cosmology.

Now, from Abraham , we are told that Kolob is great, rotates very slowly, and was the first star made first creation. Yet as we learned in the previous section the largest great stars burn through their nuclear fuel very quickly, and end up as supernovae, typically leaving behind a neutron star that is unimaginable dense and rotating very fast.

For Kolob to still be a star, and the first creation, and rotating very slowly, it must be a small star. Perhaps something like a brown dwarf, a star that's so small it can barely sustain any nuclear processes at all. As such, its mass and energy output would be relatively small. In short, the idea that the first star is great, and still a significant star not burnt out is contradictory. This is no trivial problem. The idea that the first star is still around, and has a very low rate of rotation, is inconsistent with what we know of stellar evolution.

For that first star to be still shining, it must have been very small. Otherwise, it would have long ago burned all its nuclear fuel and would now be a black hole, or a very small neutron star that is rotating very quickly. Anderson, , First Books Library. Why can't the Hubble Space Telescope see Kolob? The conclusion from the FAIR website "Until someone can make a convincing case that their interpretation of these things is the only reasonable one, any faith-promoting proof from Abraham's astronomy is a flimsy house of cards and any faith-destroying attack on some straw-man interpretation is laughable.

Is called in Egyptian Enish-go-on-dosh ; this is one of the governing planets also, and is said by the Egyptians to be the Sun, and to borrow its light from Kolob through the medium of Kae-e-vanrash, which is the grand Key, or, in other words, the governing power, which governs fifteen other fixed planets or stars, as also Floeese or the Moon, the Earth and the Sun in their annual revolutions.

Does this make any sense in the context of the above paragraph? Why would the Sun borrow the 'light of Christ' from a star known as Kolob? Doesn't it make more sense that someone might believe that a star would be borrow its light, meaning the sunlight that shines from it, from another star? The primary benefit that a star provides to people is to provide light, meaning sunlight and has nothing to do with the light of Christ. ALSO, the idea that our star got its light and power from another star was a theory known in Joseph's time.

Joseph likely just believed what the scientists of his day believed and incorporated that into scripture. The astronomical phrases and concepts in the Abraham texts were also common in Joseph Smith's environment. In these six pages, Taylor calls the planets "governors" and uses the terms "fixed stars and planets" and "grand key.

Grant Athay, a research astronomer and director of the University of Colorado Observatory, has written, "At the time that the Book of Abraham was translated…the energy source of the sun was unknown," and "the concept of one star influencing another was also a common concept of the time.

The event is recorded in Gen. The fall of Adam is one of the most important occurrences in the history of man. Before the fall, Adam and Eve had physical bodies but no blood. There was no sin, no death, and no children among any of the earthly creations. With the eating of the "forbidden fruit," Adam and Eve became mortal, sin entered, blood formed in their bones, and death became a part of life.

Adam became the "first flesh" upon the earth Moses 3: After Adam fell, the whole creation fell and became mortal. Adam's fall brought both physical and spiritual death into the world upon all mankind Hel. The world is the human family. This earth was organized or formed out of other planets which were broke up and remodelled and made into the one on which we live.

There was no death in the world; death entered after the fall. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine ]. The current CES manuals used by church still argue that there was no death before Adam underlining added:. It is simple when you understand it. Adam was the first of all creatures to fall and become flesh, and flesh in this sense means mortality, and all through our scriptures the Lord speaks of this life as flesh, while we are here in the flesh, so Adam became the first flesh.

There was no other mortal creature before him, and there was no mortal death until he brought it, and the scriptures tell you that. It is here written, and that is the gospel of Jesus Christ. In the world another theory of how things began is popularly held and widely taught. This theory, that of organic evolution, was generally developed from the writings of Charles Darwin. It puts forth different ideas concerning how life began and where man came from.

In relation to this theory, the following statements should help you understand what the Church teaches about the Creation and the origin of man. He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world ; for, according to this theory, death had always been in the world. If, therefore, there was no fall, there was no need of an atonement, hence the coming into the world of the Son of God as the Savior of the world is a contradiction, a thing impossible.

The fossils of animals and plants that have lived and died on this earth are thousands and millions of years old. From ancient dead animals and plants, it takes millions of years for oil and coal to form. What eternal purpose they played in the creation and early history of the earth is unknown. The scriptures do not address the question, and it is not the realm of science to explore the issue of why they were here.

We can only conclude, as Elder Talmage did, that "[The oldest, that is to say the earliest, rocks thus far identified in land masses reveal the fossilized remains of once living organisms, plant and animal. The coal strata, upon which the world of industry so largely depends, are essentially but highly compressed and chemically changed vegetable substance. These lived and died, age after age, while the earth was yet unfit for human habitation.

Talmage, "The Earth and Man. To pay attention to and give reasonable credence to their research and findings is to link the church of God with the highest increase of human thought and effort. Roberts, "The Truth, the Way, the Life. The earth is a coherent whole, and all geologic evidence contradicts the proposition that the earth was made from other planets.

The continents line up "as if" they all used to be one continent millions of years ago. To test this theory, rock strata are checked at the "line up" points of distant continents. It works, the rocks are similar at the match points. There is a layer of iridium all around the whole earth that was deposited there at just about the time the dinosaurs became extinct give or take a hundred thousand years or so. If this earth were made from other earths, then why would that layer cover the whole earth at the same basic depth with the same basic thickness?

This earth was once in a molten state which cooled to allow the continents to solidify. They then separated due to convection from the earth's molten interior plate tectonics , and the continents separated millions of years ago. We are to understand that it contains the revealed will, mysteries, and the works of God; the hidden things of his economy concerning this earth during the seven thousand years of its continuance , or its temporal existence. We are to understand that the first seal contains the things of the first thousand years, and the second also of the second thousand years, and so on until the seventh.

Temporal, by all interpretations, means passing, temporary or mortal. This, then, has reference to the earth in its fallen state, for the earth was cursed when Adam, who was given dominion over it, transgressed the law. Before that time, this earth was not mortal any more that Adam was. This we learn from other scriptures; for instance, see 2 Nephi 2: Doctrines of Salvation, Joseph Fielding Smith, Volume 1, page 80, Bookcraft edition, original emphasis preserved.

The Discourses of Wilford Woodruff , p. These prophecies will have their fulfilment before the world; and all who will not repent will be engulfed in the destructions which are in store for the wicked.

If men do not cease from their murders, whoredoms, and all the wickedness and abominations which fill the black catalogue of the crimes of the world, judgment will overtake them; and whether we are believed or not, these sayings are true, and I bear my testimony as a servant of God and as an Elder in Israel to the truth of the events which are going to follow very fast on each other.

How do we know this? God has told us in new revelation that this earth is destined to continue its temporal existence for seven thousand years, and that at the commencement of the seventh thousand, he will cause seven angels to sound their trumpets.

In other words, we may call it the Millennium, for the meaning of the world millennium is a thousand years. Six thousand years must pass away from the creation till the time that Jesus comes in the clouds of heaven, and he will not come exactly at the expiration of six thousand years. When the Prophet Joseph asked the Lord what was meant by the sounding of the seven trumpets, he was told, "That as God made the world in six days, and on the seventh day he finished his work and sanctified it, and also formed man out of the dust of the earth; even so in the beginning of the seventh thousand years, will the Lord God sanctify the earth, and complete the salvation of man, and judge all things and shall redeem all things, except that which he hath not put into his power when he shall have sealed all things unto the end of all things, and the sounding of the trumpets of the seven angels is the preparing and finishing of his work, in the beginning of the seventh thousand years; to prepare the way before the time of his coming.

Neither of these trumpets have sounded yet, but they shortly will; and this gives us a little clue to the period and age of our world. We know that six thousand years have not yet elapsed since the creation, but we know that they have very nearly expired.

But how long that morning had existed we do not know, unless we appeal to the Book of Abraham , translated by Joseph Smith from Egyptian papyrus. That tells us in plainness that the way the Lord and the celestial host reckoned time, was by the revolutions of a certain great central body called Kolob, which had one revolution on its axis in a thousand of our years, and that was one day with the Lord, and when the Lord said to Adam, "In the day thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.

Hence when we go back to the history of the creation, we find that the Lord was not in such a great hurry as many suppose, but that he took indefinite periods of long duration to construct this world, and to gather together the elements by the laws of gravitation to lay the foundation and form the nucleus thereof, and when he saw that all things were ready and properly prepared, he then placed the man in the Garden of Eden to rule over all animals, fish and fowls, and to have dominion over the whole face of the earth.

All these will be as a drop in the bucket in comparison with the eternal knowledge that will yet flow down from heaven upon the heads of the Latter-day Saints before this generation shall pass away. The earth will be filled with the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the great deep, and the things of all nations will be revealed.

The records of old that were kept by the people of Asia, who have since dwindled into savages by reason of the transgressions of their fathers; and those that have been kept by the ten tribes of the north countries, where they have lived for over 25 centuries; and those records that have been kept by the people of the City of Enoch, giving an account of the dealings of God with ancient Zion, will all come forth to help fill the earth with the knowledge of God, as the waters cover the great deep.

And John, when upon the Isle of Patmos, saw things in vision, which were commanded to be sealed up, and they are yet to be unsealed; and in this way we shall receive knowledge upon knowledge, revelation upon revelation, concerning not only the six or seven thousand years of the earth's temporal existence, but concerning the materials of the earth before it was made, and the elements and materials, and all things pertaining to the future earth that is to be created when the elements of this earth shall be dissolved and pass away into space.

Cannon, April 6, Now we see, and according to history we learn, that all creation are at enmity one with another in their natural state. Hence we find the lions with teeth, probably constructed since the fall, and adapted to devour their prey. I do not believe they had such teeth in the beginning. They had teeth with which they ate "straw like the ox. We see him at this early stage in our race, seeking the blood of his fellows, and entering into secret combinations to kill, and destroy, and rob one another of their position and property, and to be at enmity one against another.

The Lord in the midst of this fallen condition of his temporal work, has permitted it to continue for about 6, years. Enmity prevails, and has prevailed, for the last 6, years, with the exception of now and then a dispensation, being introduced, wherein this fallen nature of ours becomes, in a great measure, changed through obedience to the plan of salvation which God has revealed; and then we begin to love our fellow-men, are filled with love and kindness like, in some measure, our heavenly Father, going forth and proclaiming to them the Gospel of peace, and trying to do them good, and redeem them, and reclaim them; and we succeed, now and then, in bringing some to a higher stake; they are born of God, and become new creatures in Christ, being filled with that superior power, that exists in that celestial world, where we formerly resided.

While this earth existed in its more perfect temporal form, Adam and Eve were placed upon it, and they were immortal, just like all the beasts and just like the fishes of the sea; death had not yet come upon any of them; all things were immortal so far as this creation was concerned. The first pairs, the beginning of his temporal work, were not subject to death. We are now living near the close of years during which time evil and wickedness have prevailed.

In modern times the LDS Church generally avoids making definitive statements on the age of the earth as evidence by this quote from the Old Testament institute manual:. While it is interesting to note these various theories, officially the Church has not taken a stand on the age of the earth. For reasons best known to Himself, the Lord has not yet seen fit to formally reveal the details of the Creation.

However they don't necessarily embrace the scientific view and provide enough 'evidence' of an earth only thousands of years old by mentioning this theory:. Although the majority of geologists, astronomers, and other scientists believe that even this long period [ years] is not adequate to explain the physical evidence found in the earth, there are a small number of reputable scholars who disagree. These claim that the geologic clocks are misinterpreted and that tremendous catastrophes in the earth's history speeded up the processes that normally may take thousands of years.

They cite evidence supporting the idea that thirteen thousand years is not an unrealistic time period. Immanuel Velikovsky, for example, wrote three books amassing evidence that worldwide catastrophic upheavals have occurred in recent history, and he argued against uniformitarianism, the idea that the natural processes in evidence now have always prevailed at the same approximate rate of uniformity.

Two Latter-day Saint scientists, Melvin A. Garfield Cook, have also advocated this theory in their book Science and Mormonism. HOWEVER, the quotes given above by the prophets since Joseph Smith's time show that the LDS Church clearly taught that the earth was only thousands of years old instead of billions of years old for all of the 19th century and much of the 20th century.

Many gospel doctrine teachers still teach that the earth isn't nearly as old as scientists say. This value is derived from several different lines of evidence. Traditionally, the earliest fossil evidence of multi-cellular life is about million years old, however in scientists at Yale University reported evidence that worm-like animals lived on Earth 1.

The earliest land plant is about million years old. The oldest land animals ever discovered lived about million years ago, according to discoveries made in near Ludlow. There is also the question of layers of sediment. The layers above are newer than those below. If a skeleton is found in a layer of 60, year old rock, the skeleton is 60, years old. If it is found below that layer, it is older than 60, years.

There are also many other forms of dating, some of which are described here: There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the Earth was created a very long time ago.

Further evidence comes from the complete agreement between radiometric dates and other dating methods such as counting tree rings [dendrochronology] or glacier ice core layers. Many Christians have been led to distrust radiometric dating and are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how a number of the dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another.

Arguments over the age of the Earth have sometimes been divisive for people who regard the Bible as God's word. Even though the Earth's age is never mentioned in the Bible, it is an issue because those who take a strictly literal view of the early chapters of Genesis can calculate an approximate date for the creation by adding up the life-spans of the people mentioned in the genealogies.

Assuming a strictly literal of the week of creation, even if some of the generations were left out of the genealogies, the Earth would be less than ten thousand years old.

Radiometric dating techniques indicate that the Earth is thousands of times older than that--approximately four and a half billion years old.

Many Christians accept this and interpret the Genesis account in less scientifically literal ways. However, some Christians suggest that the geologic dating techniques are unreliable, that they are wrongly interpreted, or that they are confusing at best.

Unfortunately, much of the literature available to Christians has been either inaccurate or difficult to understand, so that confusion over dating techniques continues. The next few pages cover a broad overview of radiometric dating techniques, show a few examples, and discuss the degree to which the various dating systems agree with each other. The goal is to promote greater understanding on this issue, particularly for the Christian community.

Many people have been led to be skeptical of dating without knowing much about it. For example, most people don't realize that carbon dating is only rarely used on rocks. This is continued here: Honestly I do not know how they can, and I am going to show you that they do not. There are some who attempt to do it but they are inconsistent - absolutely inconsistent, because that doctrine is so incompatible, so utterly out of harmony, with the revelations of the Lord that a man just cannot believe in both.

I say most emphatically, you cannot believe in this theory [of evolution] of the origin of man, and at the same time accept the plan of salvation as set forth by the Lord our God. You must choose the one and reject the other, for they are in direct conflict and there is a gulf separating them which is so great that it cannot be bridged, no matter how much one may try to do so Then Adam, and by that I mean the first man, was not capable of sin.

He could not transgress, and by doing so bring death into the world; for, according to this theory [of evolution], death had always been in the world.

Are you prepared to believe such a thing as that? All authentic accounts of the earth's origins have a single source-the Creator of all things, whose explanations come to us through prophets. For centuries only one account has been available to the world-the record now preserved in the Bible.

But with the Restoration have come three others. Each of these four accounts offers valuable insight into the process and purposes of the Creation. After Joseph Smith had translated the Book of Mormon and learned that many plain and precious truths had been taken from the Bible, the Lord commanded him to "translate" the Bible.

In doing so, he used neither Hebrew nor Greek documents but drew upon revelation and inspiration as the source of the text. Moses had been shown a vision depicting something of the breadth and depth of the Lord's creations. When Moses asked for more information about the origin of this earth, the Lord responded: I will speak unto thee concerning this earth;.

There are, indeed, some very slight exceptions, as for instance, the ass may mix with the mare and produce the mule; but there it ends, the violation of the laws of procreation receives a check, and its operations can go no further. We came not from some menial order of life, but our ancestor is God our heavenly Father. McConkie, Mormon Doctrine , p. We have rather specific scriptural indications that the creative period was of relatively short duration.

Iamges: why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate

why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate

While most Christian adults can remain happily scientifically illiterate, waves of Christian young people each year are forced to engage with the reality of biology and geology in high school and college classes. These will be discussed in the next section. One species of a fungus Laboulbenia grows exclusively on the rear portion of the covering wings of a single species of beetle Aphaenops cronei found only in some caves of southern France.

why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate

However, it was Von Weizsacker's argument, based on the abundance of argon in the Earth's atmosphere relative to the other noble gases He, Ne, Kr, and Xe , that 40 K also decayed to 40 Ar by electron capture.

why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate

Although there were attempts to make relative age estimates, no direct dating method was available until the twentieth century. One of the best ways to measure farther back in time than tree rings is by using the seasonal variations in polar ice from Greenland and Antarctica. Every temple needs images of the god-king, and humans were made to serve that function, among others. If speakers of the various ancestral languages had been in the same area when their languages branched, they would try to communicate using pidgins, and their resultant languages would be pidginised, much as English was when invaders from Scandinavia and Normandy came that accounts for the relative simplicity of Speed dating florence ky grammar, such why radiometric dating of sedimentary rocks is rarely accurate logical gender instead of grammatical gender. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun is in the center of the universe and that the sun does not go around the earth but the earth goes around the sun, then it would be necessary to be careful in explaining the Scriptures that seemed contrary. Wood is simply not strong enough my kitchen rules 2014 dating prevent separation between the joints, especially in the heavy seas that the Ark would have encountered. So very much gets written down in our world that we have to remind ourselves that things were much different in the ancient Middle East.