Old Earth or Young?

New Findings Show Flaws In Old-Earth Dating Methods

by	Kyle Butt, M.A.

For decades the general population has been informed that numerous “scientific” evidences prove beyond all doubt that the age of the Earth should be measured in billions of years instead of thousands. We have been told that dating methods, such as the rates of decay of radioactive elements, force an honest observer to an old-Earth conclusion. The problems with this “evidence” are many (see DeYoung, 2005). One of the most glaring problems with such reasoning is that it is based on assumptions that have proven to be incorrect.

For instance, in order for the old-Earth clocks that are based on radioactive elements to be accurate, it must be taken as a fact that the decay rates of the elements are constant, and have been for the last several “billion years” (not that there ever really has been such time). For years, that assumption has been shown to have serious problems (DeYoung), and recent findings have made that assumption even more glaringly false.

On August 23, Dan Stober wrote an article for the Stanford Report titled “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements.” He reported on findings from researchers at Stanford and Purdue universities that suggest that the decay rates of radioactive elements can vary based on the activity of solar flares. The implications of such a discovery are profound. As Stober wrote: “The story begins, in a sense, in classrooms around the world, where students are taught that the rate of decay of a specific radioactive material is a constant. This concept is relied upon, for example, when anthropologists use carbon-14 to date ancient artifacts” (2010, emp. added). Stober’s implication is that if the decay rates are not constant, as we have been taught by the evolutionary community for decades, then their dating methods cannot be reliable, since they “rely” on a constant rate of decay.

Stober further commented that the constant-rate-of-decay assumption “was challenged” by Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue researcher, who found disagreement in measured decay rates of certain radioactive isotopes, “odd for supposed physical constants” (Stober, 2010). What was more, upon assessing further data, researchers noticed seasonal decay rate differences in certain isotopes, “the decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer” (2010). Stanford professor emeritus of applied physics Peter Sturrock stated: “Everyone thought it must be due to experimental mistakes, because we’re all brought up to believe that decay rates are constant” (2010).

Further research, however, suggested that the information was not an experimental mistake. In December of 2006, Jere Jenkins, a nuclear engineer at Purdue University, noticed that the decay rate of manganese-54 dropped slightly just before and during a solar flare. Jenkins and Fischbach argue that this variation in decay rates is caused by interaction between solar neutrinos and the radioactive elements being observed. Stober quoted Fischbach as saying that all the evidence assessed by Sturrock, Fischbach, and Jenkins “points toward a conclusion that the sun is ‘communicating’ with radioactive isotopes on Earth” (2010).

Strober admitted that no one knows how neutrinos could possibly ‘communicate’ with radioactive elements on Earth. Fischbach acknowledged that “it doesn’t make any sense according to conventional ideas.” Sturrock stated, “It’s an effect that no one yet understands…. But that’s what the evidence points to. It’s a challenge for the physicists and a challenge for the solar people too.” More than that, though, it is a challenge for the dogmatic evolutionists who insist that their deep-time dating methods are accurate. This latest research brings to light the glaring flaw of such dating methods, showing that the core assumptions are not only questionable, they are verifiably false.

The suggestion that decay rates may be affected by neutrinos is nothing new. The TalkOrigins Web site cites a reference to Henry Morris mentioning the possibility as early as 1974 and Davis Young discussing it in 1988 (“Claim CD004,” 2004). The responses given by TalkOrigins do not include the new data from the latest research, and cannot dismiss the fact that the rates of radioactive elements are measurably variable, even though the neutrino interaction with them is little understood (2004). Since we can prove that certain radioactive elements have a rate that varies in the winter or summer, or during solar flares, then the assumption that decay rates are constant cannot honestly be maintained.

CONCLUSION

It has long been taught in classrooms across the world that the constancy of radioactive decay rates is a core assumption upon which old-Earth conclusions are based. Yet this assumption has been proven false, based on the fact that decay rates have been shown to vary. This information, according to scientists from Purdue and Stanford, goes against what has been “taught in classrooms” and against “what we’re all brought up to believe.” Does our society never tire of discovering that the “evidence” for old-Earth assumptions continues to disintegrate as more data is assessed? How long will it be, and how many more core evolutionary assumptions must be debunked, before those who insist on an Earth measured in billions of years acquiesce to the truth of a young Earth measured in thousands of years? Once again we see accurate scientific evidence in complete agreement with a straightforward reading of biblical history (Butt, 2002).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2002), “The Bible Says the Earth is Young,” http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1757.

“Claim CD004,” (2004), http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD004.html.

DeYoung, Don (2005), Thousands…Not Billions (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Stober, David (2010), “The Strange Case of Solar Flares and Radioactive Elements,”http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/breaking/2010/08/23/the-strange-case-of-solar-flares-and-radioactive-elements/.

---

Copyright © 2010 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Population Statistics and a Young Earth

by	Jeff Miller, Ph.D.

Both sides of the creation/evolution debate are locked in a heated battle over the truth about human origins, the age of the Universe, and the ultimate Cause of all things. Interestingly, while this debate rages and arguments are flying from both sides of the issue, there is reasonable evidence available which sidesteps much of the seeming complexity of this conflict and helps to illuminate the truth on the matter of human origins. This evidence comes from the realm of population statistics. What is the reasonable conclusion that should be drawn from the evidence in this area?

There is no question that both viewpoints—biblical and evolutionary—require a commencement point for mankind to begin propagation of the species. The biblical (i.e., Flood) model asserts that God started the process, creating both Adam and Eve—one male and one female—approximately 6,000 years ago. From them, the human race was established and ultimately exterminated in the global Flood of Noah’s day (Genesis 6-9), with the exception of Noah and his family. After the Flood, Noah’s three sons and their wives commenced the repopulation of the human species (Genesis 9:19).

The evolutionary model claims that the first “man” of the genus Homo emerged around two to three million years ago (cf. Corballis, 2002, p. 183; Johanson, 2001; “The Emergence…,” 2011; University of Utah, 2005; Walker, 2002). It has always been intriguing that the evolutionary side of the aisle appears to be quiet about the fact that at the commencement of the human species, both male and female human beings had to evolve simultaneously, in the same geographic area, and while both were alive, in order for the human species to propagate itself—not just one male or one female, and not two males or two females. Further, these male and female human bodies also had to contain the fully functional reproductive components that would be necessary to replicate humanity. In The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality, Graham Bell discusses this quandary, stating that:

Sex is the queen of problems in evolutionary biology. Perhaps no other natural phenomenon has aroused so much interest; certainly none has sowed as much confusion. The insights of Darwin and Mendel, which have illuminated so many mysteries, have so far failed to shed more than a dim and wavering light on the central mystery of sexuality, emphasizing its obscurity by its very isolation (1982, p. 19).

Evolutionist Philip Kitcher admitted, “Despite some ingenious suggestions by orthodox Darwinians, there is no convincing Darwinian history for the emergence of sexual reproduction” (1982, p. 54). Evolutionist Mark Ridley noted that “[s]ex is a puzzle that has not yet been solved; no one knows why it exists” (2001, p. 111). Julie Schecter said that “sex remains a mystery to researchers, to say nothing of the rest of the population. Why sex?” (1984, 34:680). [See Thompson and Harrub, 2002 for an in depth discussion on the origin of genders and sexuality.]

Besides the problem raised for evolutionists by the origin of sexual reproduction, more problems exist that evolutionists appear to be quite reticent about. For instance, the patriarch and matriarch of the human race, having miraculously emerged in the same time period of history with each other, also had to be able to find each other on planet Earth without first starving, without being eaten by the ferocious animals that evolutionary images of early man portray, and without getting too old to replicate. And still further, just because there is another human being near you, does that mean you will be attracted to him/her? The male and female had to decide that they liked each other and do something about it before dying. And even further, the baby and mother had to survive the ordeal of child birth in those allegedly primitive circumstances. If the emergence of one human being from a non-human being seems ludicrous due to its contradiction of the Law of Biogenesis, surely this realization makes the evolutionary proposition beyond preposterous.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE EVOLUTIONARY MODEL

However, for the sake of argument, let us grant the atheistic evolutionist several miraculous feats—two living, opposite-sex human beings, with the necessary sexual components to propagate the species, in the same region on Earth, safe guarded from their primitive environment, with a desire for each other, and young enough to replicate. Even granting all of these significant but unrealistic assumptions, the evolutionist is left with statistical obstacles. Consider the mathematics for this argument.

Let us suppose that couples throughout history have had an average of (2 × c) children (i.e., c boys plus cgirls). Starting with two humans, this would make the population after the first generation, Pn = 2+2 ∙ c. Then, the children, marrying each other, had another (2 ∙ c) children per couple. As illustrated in Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Lammerts, 1971), continuing this progression results in the following equation, where n is the number of generations for which the calculation is done.

After multiplying both sides of Equation (1) by c, subtracting the resulting equation from Equation (1), grouping, and dividing both sides by (c – 1), the following equation results:

This gives the total population after n generations, without any deaths. Assuming each person lives an average of d generations, the number of deceased people by the final generation (i.e., the (n – d)thgeneration) can be calculated using Equation (3):

Therefore, the total population after n generations, accounting for death, can be calculated by subtracting the population of the (n – d)th generation from the population calculated in Equation (2), resulting in the following:

If each couple has only two children (i.e., c = 1), the population will remain constant, and if each couple has fewer than two children on average (i.e., c < 1), the population will decrease (Lammerts, pp. 198-205). [See also Morris and Morris, 1996 and Wysong, 1976 for more information on the derivation of the above equations.]

The actual value of the constants (c, d, and n) are unknown, since the world’s population has not been known with any certainty until the last few hundred years. They also would almost certainly have fluctuated at different times in history based on the state of technology, lifespans (especially considering the long lifespans in the generations immediately following the Flood and the shorter lifespans preceding the current state of medical knowledge), and fluctuating offspring production rates. However, this approach allows for the use of long-term averages to get a rough estimate of what the world’s population should look like over time.

Being very conservative, accounting for periods of famine, disease, war, natural calamity, etc., let us assume that c = 1.2. Thus, each couple throughout history has had, on average, at least two children, and many times three or more children were born. Also, let us assume that each person has lived, on average, one and a third generations (i.e., d = 1.3). This means that each person died having seen some, though not all, of their grandchildren. Again, this estimate is likely very conservative, especially since effective birth control methods are a relatively recent innovation. However, these conservative estimates certainly take into account the long periods of time in history when people lived shorter lives and had fewer children. Let us further assign a reasonable estimate of a “generation” to be 38 years. This means that each couple has had all of their children by age 38. All of these numbers could easily and fairly be increased, but doing so would do even further damage to the evolutionist’s case.

Using these conservative estimates, if human beings have been on the planet producing offspring for one million years, over 26,000 generations have passed. There are currently about seven billion people on earth—6.9×109 (“U.S. & World Population…,” 2011). However, according to Equation (4), there should be over 102,000 people on the Earth today if propagation commenced one million years ago. That is a one, followed by 2,000 zeros. In order to try to fathom that number, consider the following analogy. The known Universe is thought to be 28 billion light years in diameter (Powell, 2006; Tully, 2000). That is the equivalent of over 1070 cubic miles of volume. If tiny, three foot humans, modeled as cylinders with five inch radii (i.e., very narrow shoulders), were crammed into the Universe like sardines, 1082 people might fit (if they have not eaten in awhile). That leaves more than 101,918 additional people! And what’s worse, if c, d, or n are increased, as they legitimately could be, the problem is further amplified. Consider also that these numbers are based on a starting point of one million years ago. Evolutionists claim that humans have been on the Earth for two to three million years. To make their plight even worse, the evolutionary community digs its own grave significantly deeper by speculating that the original Adam and Eve were actually Adam, Eve, and about 10,000 other people (Hawks, et al., 2000). Even if 10,000 such miracles were accomplished in the same period of time in human history, one can easily imagine how many more people would result in a given period of time if 5,000 couples initially began bearing children instead of one couple. Where, pray tell, are all of the imaginary people that should be in existence if evolution is the true history of humanity?

The evolutionary community certainly has trouble adjusting the numbers to allow for this preposterous scenario. However, they must be able to come up with a reasonable explanation in order to maintain their position. If evolution is true, it must be assumed that there were times when the human population remained constant for very long periods of time or decreased to the point of extinction at different times in history (cf. Weiss, 1984; Hawks, et al., 2000). Such speculation is a leap into the dark without sufficient, verifiable evidence. [NOTE: Incidentally, such speculation is in contradiction with uniformitarian principles, which are fundamental to evolutionary dating techniques. If the Earth has not progressed in a constant, uniform fashion as macroevolution suggests, then old ages based on those uniformitarian assumptions cannot be assigned to the Earth. It seems that the evolutionary community wants to “have their cake and eat it, too.”] History grants us no world population estimates based on census’s until the last 200 years. Before that, according to population statisticians’ estimates, the average annual population growth was estimated to be relatively constant, ranging between 0.03-0.15% from 1750 A.D. to 10,000 B.C. (“Historical Estimates of World Population,” 2010) [NOTE: World populations are estimated at this later date based on the assumption that the theory of evolution is true. Such a time frame would be pre-Creation, according to the Bible, and is rejected by the author.] Likely due to medical breakthroughs and technological advancement, the annual population growth has since jumped to about 2%. Note that even the irreligious community recognizes the likelihood of significant population growth on average over time throughout history and makes its estimates accordingly. The evolutionary position, in order to exist at all, must stand in contradiction to this fact. The evidence, as well as common sense, cannot be denied. If growth is the norm as the evidence indicates, evolution is impossible. The evidence conveyed by population statistics simply does not support the evolutionary model.

POPULATION STATISTICS AND THE CREATION MODEL

What about the creation model? Is it supported by the evidence from population statistics? The biblical position asserts that after the Flood, repopulation of the Earth commenced, starting with six people (i.e., Shem, Ham, Japheth, and their wives), instead of two (or 10,000). Using the aforementioned procedure, the following equation can be derived for calculation of the projected population for any given time, starting with six people:

If we assume, based on biblical genealogies, that the Flood took place roughly 4,300 years ago (cf. Bass, 2003), using the same c andd as above, as well as a generation of 38 years, then 113 generations have passed since the global Flood of Noah’s day. Based on these numbers, the approximate projected population for today can be calculated. According to the calculations, there should be approximately seven billion people on Earth—6.7×109. This is strikingly close to the current population as recorded by the U.S. Census Bureau—6.9×109.

CONCLUSION

What does the evidence indicate? Is the evolutionary model a plausible explanation for man’s existence? The evidence from the field of population statistics says, “Certainly not.” Even granting very conservative numbers in the calculation of projected populations, it is the biblical model that is in keeping with the numerical evidence provided by the world’s population. The evidence supports a young age for the Earth and mankind. One would have to be dishonest to examine such concrete evidence and dismiss it out of hand. Yet, this attitude pervades much of the scientific community today. The same people who proclaim that they, unlike theists, are the ones who examine the evidence without bias, only drawing those conclusions that are warranted by the evidence, are the very ones who turn against the evidence when it does not suit their purpose and agenda. Philosopher David Hume once said that no man turns against reason until reason turns against him (as quoted in Warren, 1982, p. 4). That certainly sums up the mentality of many in the scientific community. Why not choose to go with the reasonable conclusion that can be drawn from the evidence? The Earth is young. Evolution cannot explain human existence. The biblical model can…and does.

REFERENCES

Bass, Alden (2003), “Which Came First, the Pyramids or the Flood?” Reason & Revelation, 23[11]:97-103, November, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/23_11/0311.pdf.

Bell, Graham (1982), The Masterpiece of Nature: The Evolution and Genetics of Sexuality (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Corballis, Michael C. (2002), From Hand to Mouth: The Origins of Language (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

“The Emergence of Modern Humans” (2011), Dolan DNA Learning Center,http://www.geneticorigins.org/pv92/intro.html.

Hawks, John, Keith Hunley, Sang-Hee Lee, and Milford Wolpoff (2000), “Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution,” Molecular Biology and Evolution, 17[1]:2-22.

“Historical Estimates of World Population” (2010), U.S. Census Bureau,http://www.census.gov/ipc/www/worldhis.html.

Johanson, Donald C. (2001), “Origins of Modern Humans: Multiregional or Out of Africa?” American Institute of Biological Sciences, http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/johanson.html.

Kitcher, Philip (1982), Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press).

Lammerts, Walter, ed. (1971), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (Philadelphia, PA: Presbyterian and Reformed).

Morris, Henry M. and John D. Morris (1996), The Creation Trilogy—Science & Creation (Green Forest, AR: Master Books).

Powell, Richard (2006), “The Size of the Universe,” An Atlas of the Universe,http://www.atlasoftheuniverse.com/universe.html.

Ridley, Mark (2001), The Cooperative Gene (New York: The Free Press).

Schecter, Julie (1984), “How Did Sex Come About?” Bioscience, December.

Thompson, Bert and Brad Harrub (2002), “The Origin of Gender and Sexual Reproduction [Part I],” Reason & Revelation, 22[10]:73-79, http://www.apologeticspress.org/pub_rar/22_10/0210.pdf.

Tully, Brent (2000), “How Big is the Universe?” NOVA Online,http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/howbig.html.

University of Utah (2005), “The Oldest Homo Sapiens: Fossils Push Human Emergence Back to 195,000 Years Ago,” Science Daily, http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/02/050223122209.htm.

“U.S. & World Population Clocks” (2011), U.S. Census Bureau,http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html.

Walker, Matthew (2002), “What Does the Archaeology Record Tell Us About the Lifestyles of the Early Hominids?” New Archaeology, http://www.newarchaeology.com/articles/earlyhom.php.

Warren, Thomas B. (1982), Logic & the Bible (Ramer, TN: National Christian Press).

Weiss, K.M. (1984), “On the Number of Members of the Genus Homo Who Have Ever Lived, and Some Evolutionary Implications,” Human Biology, December, 56[4]:637-49.

Wysong, R.L. (1976), The Creation/Evolution Controversy (East Lansing, MI: Inquiry Press).

---

Copyright © 2011 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the “Creation Vs. Evolution” section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

http://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=9&article=3840&topic=56

“Fair Use “ Notice – Title 17 U.S.C. section 107

The above post may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. It is being made available in an effort to advance the understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, social justice, for the purpose of historical debate, and to advance the understanding of Christian conservative issues.  It is believed that this constitutes a ”fair use” of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the Copyright Law. In accordance with the title 17 U.S. C. section 107, the material in this post is shown without profit to those who have expressed an interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.