Radiometric Dating… is it infallible?

It is a bit odd, for the evolutionist who rejects Christianity because of its “assumptions.” However, the premise that we can know the rate of radioactive decay may be essentially based on assumption. The assumption that the speed of light is a constant, meaning it is the same today as it was 1,000 years ago, 5,000 years ago, or even (allegedly) 1,000,000 years ago. Radioactive dating alone would seemingly put any creationist out of business… but to put it in perspective, there are outs!

This dating method is dependent on the the measurement of radioactive decay. Radioactive decay seems measure in proportion to the speed of light. Thought through, the current measurements of the speed of light may also be suspect (because of the intricacies of these “constants’” measurements may be dependent on each other, in other words, a circular reference.)

Science is so naive as to purport to know exactly how old those rocks are, because they can “date” the rate of decay of atoms that make up these rocks. But there are other lingering questions that science cannot replicate, one being existence of polonium halos embedded in granite. Polonium is an element that is formed during decay of uranium. It has a very short half-life; that is when a polonium atom exists, its “life” is measured in seconds! But I digress…

Here is another conundrum; Einstein had stated that he would be very surprised if there was any universal constant. He then went on to formulate the basis for what is much of modern day physics. The particular basis for this work is the speed of light, and the fact that it is a constant.

Yet, current scientific conjecture, yeah I know… but this is how scientists work. They need CONJECTURE, not to mention assumption, before they can POSTULATE. Investigation of the historical measurements of the speed of light would seem to indicate that the speed of light is slowing down. Even when taking account for the degrees of margin of error in the measurementS there are some interesting findings. We know that gravity affects the speed of light, also.

And for further evidence, why not look at the quantization of red shift data. And the fact that it seems to support the idea of the decline of the speed of light. This red shift data does seem to support the idea of the anthropic principle. Quantization negates the idea of an infinite, ever-expanding universe, implying it had a beginning and an end! By definition, quantization places real limits on the measurement of created things. For instance, there is a point where we can no longer measure any distance between two objects. The same constraint exists for units of time. Liken it to pixels in a modern electronic picture, a sort of digital simulation in which we live, anyway, I digress yet again.

Curiously, recent data from some aging man-made satellites suggests an unexplained Doppler frequency shift. Scientists have unsuccessfully tried to explain this to an unknown acceleration. One plausible (yes, plausible… that word cannot be used to even describe the formation of a simple protein in a “primordial ooze” by a spark of lightening) explanation not explored is a variance in the speed of light.

So one could say… the most sacred TENET of science may not be what it seems.

I would ask, what implications does that hold for radio-metric dating?

One only needs to look at the history of all of secular science to see the reluctance to accept anything that would upset preconceived notions, but it does exist. While acceptance of this evidence is easy for me to assimilate in my worldview, it is science that will find it very difficult, if near impossible to accept this data. Thus requiring rewriting of volumes of data, while also, invalidating of many theories that are treated as scientific fact, but in effect may not be TRUTH.

I look at creation and its Biblical description as the insertion of order into chaos. The fall of man is the beginning of the descent into chaos. Every observation I make, as others have made before, shows the tendency of the world to fall into disorder. Philosophically, look at your living room, it does not stay clean and orderly, but tends to disorder as it is used. Even if it is not used, disorder still enters, in the form of dust.

True science does not invalidate this view. True science does not contradict the laws of thermodynamics. Yet, we are to believe, order comes from disorder, the philosophical basis for the theory of evolution. NO! LIFE COMES FROM LIFE! There is no tangible evidence that life comes from inanimate objects, only theory… which can change tomorrow. But we can irrefutably prove over and over, life comes from life.

The heavens declare the glory of God!

There is nothing as infantile as purporting, intellectually to “know,” yet never asking self-evident questions of science. So the evolutionist has climbed atop a pile of other men, creationists whom they have deemed as inferior, and then mocked them. All of this is done so that they can reach to their god ego and proclaim how good they are. What has that achieved?

We live in a world that is dying, day-by-day. This death is caused by our very sin nature; that is our propensity to place ANYTHING before God. This is rooted in ego, too! That means that not one of us is really right! The simple truth of the matter is this, all have fallen short!

The basis of all my truth claims is that God exists. From this, I know He sent His Son Jesus into this world. Jesus became a man (because He was righteous, some would say THE Man.) It is this Man ONLY who lived a perfect (righteous) life. He then GAVE His life for all of us. He then rose again on the third day and was seen by other witnesses.

It is only by accepting this truth; confessing and repenting of your sins that you can know truth, and knowing that truth, living forever in heaven for the glory of God!

aa