Old Earth Theories: a radiological perspective

[BYRPV@ccmail.ceco.com]

 Isn't it interesting that peoplefrom all walks of life, from the 
scientific community to John Q. Public have just accepted as truth the 
assertion that the Earth must be very old?  And this without even a 
shred of solid science backing it up.  In fact, as it turns out, old 
Earth theories such as evolution, plate tectonics, the big bang theory 
and others are set on the weakest of foundations and in many ways are 
more full of holes than an ordinary fish net.  In science, when 
formulating theories on events which cannot be repeated, one must make 
assumptions, which are just accepted as true, formulate a sequence of 
events starting from the assumed conditions, and then test the theory 
using and proving hypotheses which support the theory.  Obviously, the 
fewer assumptions which have to be made for the theory to work, the 
more likely the theory is true.  Now, on to some arguments of a 
radiological nature.

Radiocarbon dating has several hidden assumptions that must be true in 
order to believe the radiocarbon ages assigned to dead organic matter.
First, it is assumed that the ratio of C-12 to C-14 remains constant 
because the two are presumed to be in equilibrium, and that it has 
always been the same as now.  These are big assumptions.  First, if 
the universe is young, the C-14 to C-12 ratio would be increasing 
(Radiocarbon has been measured and verified to be increasing 28 to 37% 
faster than it is decaying).  Notice, the assumption that the two are 
in equilibrium requires the universe to be old and the method of 
dating shows it to be old.  This is circular logic at its best.  
Second, radioactive decay rates are governed in part by c - the speed 
of light.  The speed of light is often assumed to be constant.  what 
if it were higher in the past?  Note Einstein never said c was a 
constant, only that it did not change from the veiwpoint of an 
observer regardless of how fast he or the light source is moving.  
During the last 300 years that we have been measuring the speed of 
light, it has been steadily decreasing.  In fact it has been proven 
that the magnitude of this change (1%) far exceeds possible 
measurement error.  Further, the curve which best fits the data 
indicates that the speed of light and thus radioactive decay rates 
were very much higher only thousands of years ago.  Clearly, this 
would make old objects seem much older than they are.  

Conventional beta scintillation counting techniques have proven to be 
unreliable in dating as demonstrated in huge variations in ages of 
frozen mammoths (within the same animal).  For example, one part of 
Dima (a mammoth) was dated 40,000 years while another part measured 
26,000 years.  Further, wood found immediately around the carcass read 
9,000 to 10,000 years!  Newer accelerator mass spectrometer techniques 
which count numbers of C-14 atoms have turned up C-14 in organic 
specimens that evolutionists date at millions of years.  In fact 
eleven human skeletons, the earliest known in the western hemisphere, 
have been dated using this new technique.  All eleven were dated at 
5000 years or less rather that the 100s of thousands or millions of 
years evolutionists claim.

There are literally hundreds of such arguments backed up with 
legitimate science which render conventional old Earth and 
evolutionary thories void of merit.  If anyone may wish to discuss any 
aspect of evolution theories, please write me at 
byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com.  I'll be happy to show you how easily these 
theories crumble under the scrutiny of science and reasoning.

Paul Vitalis
byrpv@ccmail.ceco.com

A little known definition from the evoutionist's dictionary:

Hydrogen: A colorless, odorless gas which left alone long enough,      
          turns into people.